Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/21/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6:30 PM RECEIVED q :00 t4.IY\. SEP - 5 2006 ~a.nl.;M Sf?th;ld-T~wn. cleik MINUTES Wednesday, June 21,2006 Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DOHERTY Seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 22nd and April 19,2006. TRUSTEE BERGEN moved to approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For May, 2006, check for $8,131.81 was Board of Trustees 2 June 21,2006 forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Basilio Esposito SCTM#53-4-7 Frank & Antoinette Notaro SCTM#63-7-30.1 John & Joan Weber SCTM#56-5-17 John & Nina Winter SCTM#13-1-5.1 Thomas Luniewski SCTM#122-3-25.2 Gregersen's Keep, LLC SCTM#35-3-12.6 Peter Benotti SCTM#89-3-11.4 Cleaves Point Condominiums SCTM#38-7-15 Fred Fragola SCTM#35-4-8 Joan & Harold Kiefer SCTM#14-3-3 Dorothy Dickerson Peters SCTM#123-4-6 John Diller SCTM#145-2-1.2 Robert & Jackie Sullivan SCTM#104-13-8 Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. SCTM#52-2-20.1 Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Assoc. SCTM#37-4-18 Allison Byers SCTM#119-1-14.1 & 14.2 Fredric Fabiano & Hilda Hutcherson SCTM#54-1-4 Laura Weil SCTM#26-1-20.1 David & Mary Jane Cassaro SCTM#37-7-10.2 Stepan Minakyan SCTM#94-1-21 Principi Properties, LLC SCTM#56-7-2 Melissa & Arthur Beisel SCTM#122-4-24 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our June meeting. Before we get going, I'd like to introduce the Board, David Bergen to my far left. Peggy Dickerson, Jill Doherty, myself, Jim King, Lauren Standish our office manager, John Holzapfel our other Trustee and Brownell Johnston, our legal advisor. Heather Cusack, our environmental technician. Usually there's a member from the CAC, the Conservation Advisory Council but there's none here tonight. Just a quick rundown on what we're doing. We're in the process of designing a new mooring code for the bay, it's a very difficult process. Dave Bergen is the sarge in charge of this operation, and we're spending a lot of time on it. If you want to talk about it, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one thing that we do want to announce Board of Trustees 3 June 21, 2006 is that we have scheduled a public information meeting for Tuesday July 18th right here at 7:00 p.m. for the public to provide comments regarding the draft of the new mooring code. The draft is available on the Town web site as a hot link on the home page as well as on a link via the Trustee web page. We're going to make the Suffolk Times aware of the issue, whether they decide to publish it that's up to them. We're looking for public input on the evening of July 18th. TRUSTEE KING: It's an information hearing. We had a meeting about a year ago when we first started this process, everybody thought the new mooring law went into effect and everybody went bananas, that isn't the case, this is a work in progress. It's very time consuming, but it's important because conditions are changing. Another thing we're working on is road runoff trying to get some projects done for water quality improvement. There's a pump-out boat in the works, we hope. I don't know I guess we have submitted the paperwork to get it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Town has authorized the purchase of a pump-out boat. It has been manufactured and we're hoping to take delivery in a couple of weeks. There's an ad in the paper right now to solicit applications for people who wish to be a pump-out boat operator. That's our next step, to hire somebody to run the boat. We hope to have the boat out in the bay sometime in July. TRUSTEE KING: We're rewriting the shellfish code, upgrading the shellfish code, making some changes to it. It hasn't been updated since the 1930s. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll probably be ready to have a hearing on that late August, September, we have to work on the mooring first. TRUSTEE KING: We have had some postponements, we should go through them now. Number 8, Cramer Consulting on behalf of Peter Benotti has been postponed for July; and Coastal Erosion Wetlands Permits, Number 3, Kevin and Susan Ferrel has been postponed to July; Wetland Permits, 20, David Shamoon has been postponed July, John Corbley has been postponed, Manzi Homes has been postponed, Fishers Island Utility Company has been postponed and Breezy Shores has been postponed until July. So we will not be looking at those for tonight. The first one on the Administrative Permits was kind of a glitch in the works, when we went over and looked at it we thought it was that little addition on the front of the Board of Trustees 4 June 21, 2006 house, over on Rabbit Lane and it isn't, it's a second story addition. So I don't think any of us had a problem with that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. MS. CUSACK: She did bring in plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, did you want to lump 1, 2, and 3 together? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we talked about doing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We're just going to add to your permit that dry wells will collect the water from the roof. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have not yet stated publicly what resolution we are talking about. TRUSTEE KING: It's number 1, Valerie Michelsen. We can open the resolution. IV. RESOLUTIONS.ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. VALERIE MICHELSEN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second story addition over part of the existing dwelling. Located: 860 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM#31-18-18 TRUSTEE KING: We didn't have any problem with this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There was a question, gutters and dry wells for the roof runoff. We didn't see it on the plans. It's one of the requirements we usually put on the house. We're going to add that to your permit that dry wells will collect the water from the roof. I make a motion that we approve it with dry wells and gutters. MS. MICHELSEN: Do I have to go back to add it to the plans? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, it will be in your permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. William H. Mann on behalf of ALBERT SAFER requests an Administrative Permit to maintain the grade of the fill (bank run) on upper beach by grading level to wall with approximately 40 cubic yards of sand: Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic. SCTM#98-5-2, 3 and 4. 3. Eileen Powers, Esq. on behalf of FRANK PASSARO requests an Administrative Permit to re-vegetate the cleared areas along the bluff. Located: 56655 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM#44-1-26 TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve both of those. Board of Trustees 5 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORINGS 1. WALTER MILLIS requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for a 15' boat, replacing Mooring #009 (20' boat). Access: Public 2. CHRIS STAVROPOLlS requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Narrow River for a 10' boat, replacing Stake #19 (12' boat). Access: Public 3. JASON PICKERELL requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach Creek for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #008 (28' boat). Access: Private 4. VICTOR TRUNCE requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Richmond Creek for a 17' boat, replacing Stake #5 (16' boat). Access: Public 5. MICHAEL & KATHY PERIVOLARIS request a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 19' boat. Access: Public 6. JEREMY HAMILTON requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a 21' boat. Access: Private 7. MAUREEN GRIFFIN requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Mattituck Creek for a 14' boat. Access: Private. TRUSTEE KING: Lump all the resolutions and moorings except for 7,7 we'll table. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I will make a motion to table Item 7 under moorings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. MR. JOHNSTON: That was Maureen Griffin. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Then, numbers 1 through 6, Walter Millis, Chris Stavropolis, Jason Pickerell Victor Trunce, Michael and Kathy Perivolaris, and that's going to be placed by the bay constable, and Jeremy Hamilton, and that's also going to be placed by the bay constable. I'll make a motion to approve those six mooring permits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 6 June 21, 2006 VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. BARBARA STYPE requests an Amendment to Permit #6281 to include a metal ramp, which will not extend the floating dock any further into the water. Located: 1765 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We approved this a couple months ago. We had a step-down, and I guess now they want a ramp. I don't have a problem with that so I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Stephen Tanal on behalf of STEPAN MINAKYAN requests an Amendment to Permit 4705 to increase size of the top platform to 8' by 8' and an 8' by 16' deck behind the bulkhead. Located: 2375 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#94-1-21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, I think some of you are here. Jim King looked at it, I looked at it. We feel the whole Board needs to look at it. It's from an old permit and it's from a lot of different changes. We would like to table it tonight, look at it at our July 12th meeting inspection and then review this. MR. VAHANTAHL: I am Stepan's father, and I have brought some very detailed photographs of what it looks like, and maybe we can save you a trip, and I can explain to you what we're doing and why we're doing. I am professional engineer. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any photographs of what it looked like before you started construction? MR. VAHANTHAL: Yes. I have photographs from several years ago. This is almost 30 years ago, you may not recognize me in that photo. At that time we had built -- just about every year we used to fix it because that bluff is progressively eroding and I can explain to you if you wish the process. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking for something around the year 2000. We issued you a permit in '97 for a bulkhead and stairway; do you have any photos of that? MR. VAHANTHAL: No, I don't. The only thing I have is the top, which is that still dates back, this is what it looks like back then. But what we are doing now, is we are reducing very significantly the area -- TRUSTEE KING: What you are doing now is really extensive and a lot more than what was permitted. Board of Trustees 7 June 21,2006 MR. VAHANTHAL: Yes, but we are doing it to stabilize the slope once and for all. TRUSTEE KING: Usually you come in and ask for an amendment. MR. V AHANTHAL: What we're doing is not against what the permit says. TRUSTEE KING: There's no mention in the permit of bulkheads. MR. VAHANTHAL: Well, we call them steps. TRUSTEE KING: This is why the whole Board needs to go out and look at this. MR. VAHANTHAL: I'm a geotechnical engineer. This is the bluff, as you know. What's happening here is that there is a one head here from agricultural land, and there is sand here, and this is our beach and this is the bay. What is happening, this is creating head differential and this is sand, and it's really creating a quicksand condition, which is the negative core pressure, very high, there is no bearing, so this portion of the bluff keeps sloughing down. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We understand that. We see it all the time. MR. VAHANTHAL: When we built the bulkhead here, this still keeps coming down but now this is going to eventually hold up its angle of repose and it's stable. So our stairways, I have put those steps so that that sloughing, local sloughing, is not going to occur under the steps and the area that we're covering, the total area -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have no problem with what you're doing, the problem is that the permit you had previously doesn't match you up to what's going on, and that's what we all want to look at. MR. VAHANTHAL: The permit is very simplified picture of what should be done. The permit doesn't show the piles what they are, how often to be done. It shows the cover of the vegetation and we're reducing the cover of the vegetation by the new construction significantly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we feel is that it's a big enough difference that it's not a minor thing so we want the whole Board to look at. So it's nothing we can act on tonight. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a copy of your old permit? MR. VAHANTHAL: Yes, it's in there. TRUSTEE KING: We have a copy, do you have a copy? MR. VAHANTHAL: Yes, I have a copy. TRUSTEE KING: Then you know what the permit says? MR. VAHANTHAL: Yes, I know very well. That's why I did the calculation to show the difference between what the permit would allow us in terms of the natural vegetation as opposed Board of Trustees 8 June 21, 2006 to what we are covering, and it's much less than what the permit would have allowed us. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not so sure about that. MR. VAHANTHAL: Oh, yes, let me show you. TRUSTEE KING: We'll look. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: No further construction until we are there. MR. VAHANTHAL: They said we could do just the steps. TRUSTEE KING: Whoever told you that did not have the authority to tell you that. MR. VAHANTHAL: We cannot make the access just the steps? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. MR. VAHANTHAL: No, okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. 3. LEONARD & KATHLEEN ROSENBAUM request a One-Year Extension to Permit #5975, as issued on August 18, 2004. Located: 965 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM#35-6-24.1 4. CAROL DENSEN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5964, as issued on July 21, 2004. Located: 750 Old Main Road, Southold SCTM#56-6-8.7 5. Andrew Nikolich on behalf of WILLOW POINT ASSOCIATION requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5963, as issued on July 21. 2004. Located: Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-28 TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve Numbers 3, 4, and 5. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. MICHAEL BUNKER requests a Transfer of Permit #1336 from Rich Green to Mike Bunker, as issued on October 25, 1978. Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. 70-5-36. TRUSTEE KING: Table Number 6 because-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's there is not what's on the permit. TRUSTEE KING: He should come in and request an amendment. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we table Number 6. Michael Bunker. Board of Trustees 9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. June 21, 2006 7. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LAURA WElL requests a Transfer of Permit #4349 from Dan Kelly to Laura Weil and an Amendment to Permit #4349 to construct a 3.5' by 80' fixed timber dock in place of existing dock consisting of 3.5' by 40' fixed catwalk, 32' by 20' ramp, and 6' by 24' float; remove and replace in-place approximately 185 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl; and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-20.1 TRUSTEE KING: Although this isn't a public hearing, we welcome any comments on this. MR. BREDERMEIR: Good evening, Mr. President and Members of the Town Trustees. My name is John Bredermeir, my dad is an adjacent property owner. Unfortunately, he's sick and he was confined to the hospital this week and couldn't be here to present information. He gave me a letter of authorization, and I have prepared a packet, I think with sufficient copies to give all the members of the Board, and if I may approach the Board and give you materials so I can go through it as you go through it. MR. JOHNSTON: Can I see the letter of permission? MR. BREDERMEIR: Yes, you may. It's on the last page. want to provide a little bit of historic basis. First of all, I want to say, she's a valued neighbor. And the kids are taking care of her dog this weekend. My comments refer to historical activity on the property, and in no way reference her individually. She's a great person, and hope I can keep it in that context. I'm going to run through it right as you see it, and there's supportive photographs attached. This is to involved Agencies from John Bredermeir, III, June 21,2006, concerning the proposed application of Laura Weil, Suffolk County Tax Map, to construct 3.5 by 80 fixed dock, 185' of vinyl bulkhead replacing existing structures depicted on the En-Consultants, Incorporated plan dated 5/10/06. This is a request for relief from existing and future negative environmental impacts of this proposal relating to an unauthorized existing drawing affixed to the existing bulkhead and dock. Legal standing in this matter I have been asked to act in the aforementioned matter on behalf of my parents, John Bredermeir, Jr. and Jean R. Bredermeir. They reside at 2660 Village Lane, Orient, New York, which is Board of Trustees 10 June 21, 2006 their principal residence, located immediately north of and contiguous to the proposed site. I have attached a letter of authorization at the back of my packet, Page 6. Background for a discussion, my parents have lived on Village Lane in Orient and have owned the property immediately north of Miss Weil for the last 42 years; and to the best of their knowledge and belief, the existing 25 foot long high profile solid wooden groin, which is depicted on the En-Consultants' plan at the north end of the bulkhead, which is contiguous to and an integral part of the existing dock never secured regulatory approvals when it was constructed and it was built under the dock to avoid the need for permits, according to the previous owner, who made a point of bragging about the construction to several of the neighbors. At the time, I know my dad was not particularly happy, but he swallowed hard and decided to see what would proceed. MR. HERMANN: Mr. Bredermeir, do you mind if I interrupt you? I may be able to save you some time. Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I'll save Mr. Bredermeir the time of reading this letter, and accept that it's going to demonstrate that the groin is illegal. MR. BREDERMEIR: I'd like to read my presentation first, if I may. As a matter of order, I don't want to get into a debating session here. MR. HERMANN: All right. As a matter of order, let me ask Counsel, if I have permits here dating back from 1964, 1982, 1994 and 1994 from the Department of the Army, the DEC and your Board all from the time this groin was constructed to the time it was resheathed twice in the past 20 years, would you accept that documentation and maybe save some time to argue that this structure doesn't have any permits? Because I have quickly read Mr. Bredermeir's letter, and it's a two-page letter explaining why he believes this structure is illegal. MR. BREDERMEIR: I also asked for certain relief from the negative impact of the structure. MR. HERMANN: That part I won't interrupt you on, just the part that it's not legal. TRUSTEE KING: This is all kind of pushed on us in a hurry here. MR. HERMANN: Sorry for the interruption. MR. JOHNSTON: John, if it's okay with you, when we have letters like this, because we have so many applications as opposed to when you were president and you had three or four a month, we normally stipulate letters like this, Florence Board of Trustees 11 June 21,2006 will put it into the record as if you read it, we will stipulate that you read the letter in the minutes, all of this documentation will be in, and the minutes are obviously given to each of the Trustees, their legal advisor, to Heather and Lauren and in the FOIA file for anybody to look at. Can I ask you to stipulate that as a courtesy to the Trustees and then any comments that you were going to have beyond the six pages we would appreciate having Florence transcribe those extra comments that are not in these six pages, we would be happy to entertain that as long as it's limited to five minutes. MR. BREDERMEIR: I foresee no problem in agreeing to that stipulation. But if I might, I don't see a need to come back to this. I have spent a good deal of time on it. The comments from the gentleman from En-Consultants are well-taken, if there is, in fact, a permit history and the prior owner who made certain statements on his own behalf are in fact they went back for a permit, hey, that's what it is. Could I just for the purpose of discussion just cover the one portion where I request relief? TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead, just make it brief. MR. BREDERMEIR: Absent proof certain that the groin in question is a lawful structure, the Bredermeirs request the said northerly groin on the Weil property, which is attached to dock and bulkhead be removed in its entirety as a condition of any permit. If it is a lawful structure, they request it be reduced in height and length to become a functional low-profile groin, and that it be well armored with riprap and large stones on its north side. Additionally, the Bredermeirs request that any permit granted to Ms. Weil require the placement of rock armoring or riprap of suitable size and quantity at the toe of the new bulkhead along the entirety of its north face, starting at the Bredermeir retaining wall and wrapping around to the northwest corner of the bulkhead and continuing to the beginning of the new dock so as to have the effect of minimizing toe scour and other erosional forces. Also, the Bredermeirs have no objection to a new low profile rock groin less than three feet height and 20 feet in length, which approximate the size of another stone groin on the property, be permitted and constructed in place of the existing hard structure in question. This property is bulkheaded and is one of only two such properties that lie substantially seaward of the natural curve of the land, the lay of the land in Orient Harbor, and yet it has three groin Board of Trustees 12 June 21, 2006 structures that go beyond the bulkhead. That's our primary concern, I want to thank you for your attention. I have no problem with your request. TRUSTEE KING: John, do you have any comments to make about the extension of the dock rather than the floating dock? MR. BREDERMEIR: No, in your discretion, I mean, we have no objection to the extension of the dock whatsoever. And I know Ms. Weil wants to get the dock in as quickly as possible. If those issues have to be separated out and grant her a permit to move expeditiously, I think that dock size is the same as what was historically enjoyed there by previous owners, and the ramp and float combination was never suitable for Orient Harbor because it got destroyed in the storms there. So no. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the dock, though, I believe there's some condition that has to be a removable. TRUSTEE KING: That was the float. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's a separate issue. TRUSTEE KING: The issue was the float was a seasonal float, I believe. It was supposed to be taken out by the 1 st of December because I think years ago there was a lot of scalloping activity in that area. MR. BREDERMEIR: My comments are included in that concerning public access. My parents want to avoid having to bulkhead their property if the erosion continues, very concerned about it. Their property seaward of their retaining structure has usually the site of the largest influx of scallops to harvest off the beach. On numerous occasions, hundreds of bushels have come off of there and if they were ever forced to harden their structure and go out because the erosion continues there, it might ruin the public access. Really, I don't want to talk anymore. I know you already limited my comments. Thank you very much. MR. HERMANN: To clarify, Jim, it's not an extension of the dock facility. The dock facility was historically a fixed 40 foot pier that I'm only going to presume on John Costello's behalf, since I don't see him here, that the dock was extended in 1994 and permits were obtained from this Board, the Army Corps and the DEC for a ramp and float assembly that would go out a couple of feet farther than what we're proposing now. What has happened, Mr. Bredermeir's correct, the configuration of that floating assembly was not really appropriate. So what they're doing is in effect asking to amend the prior reconfiguration of this by replacing the ramp and float with a section -- with an additional fixed section, but it would not go out any Board of Trustees 13 June 21,2006 farther than what is there. In fact, it's a little bit shorter, if you look at Sheet 1 of 2. It's miniscule compared to the Bredermeir dock, so that's probably one reason he wouldn't object to it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question always was that is an active scallop area, and when that permit originally came up there was a lot of opposition to putting it out there at all, and that was a compromise to allow them to have a dock and at the same time get it out of most of the way. TRUSTEE KING: The old permit says float and ramp will be removed by 12/1 each year. MR. HERMANN: As you said, Jim, it was a seasonal structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So, John, the condition of the area now is that there is no eel grass? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I wouldn't say there's a lot of eel grass but the scallops are still around. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it still a consideration? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Absolutely, I would say yes, and I said it 12 years ago on that permit. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, John was one of the signers of the July 11, 1994 permit authorizing Mr. Kelly. MR. HERMANN: For the dock and the resheathing of the groins. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I remember the whole incident and the public comments at the time. MR. HERMANN: John, I don't have anything to offer in rebuttal to that. It is a Board's -- what I would say in support of the application is that it does take up that space, it's a larger structure. There would presumably be more disturbance to that area, putting a float in and out every year than just having a fixed structure where the grass would grow around it, you'd have fowling organisms adhering themselves to it, and it would be on a permanent structure. If it then becomes a question of access for baymen, that's a different story. If there's something there versus nothing there, obviously there's no counter-argument to that. It's just the sense that the ramp and float are not going to hold up even up to that window. So that's what Laura Weil would like to do is to replace it with a fixed structure, and when I saw, not knowing the history from 12 years ago, when I saw the Bredermeir dock next door, I didn't imagine that there would be any opposition to it given the enormity of that dock, which is a fixed structure and includes an "L" section and a curve at the end of it. Sort of like a commercial dock next door. So that was my only thought going into it, and obviously Board of Trustees 14 June 21, 2006 Mr. Bredermeir didn't seem to have any objection to this as a fixed dock. That really becomes a Board question that I can't help you with. As far as the other comments, I don't know if you want me to respond, I can do so quickly. In terms of the stone armoring, it's never been this Board's practice to allow the placement of what in effect becomes stone fill in the navigable waterway and here the high water line does go to the bulkhead regularly. The toe armor serves the purpose of dissipating wave energy, which prevents toe scour of the beach in front of it. If the stone is inundated, it doesn't tend to serve much purpose, and I'm not sure what the toe scour in front of this lot would be to the Bredermeirs anyway. But I just know that in the past, even where we have had clients request it, the Board has denied petitions to put stone armor where it's going to be submerged at high tide. As far as the groin, again, I can't respond more than that. It's a legal structure. It was constructed legally in 1964. This Board has approved its maintenance as recently as 12 years ago. It's not a subject of the application. If Miss Weil does come in at some point to replace this groin, I'm sure that you would hold her to the same standards as you normally do for groin reconstruction, where you would only allow it to be reconstructed out to where it's currently functional, which is about 16 not 25 feet. So, if we had this in front of you tonight, I'm certain we would only be able to reconstruct it out to 16 feet, but it's not currently part of the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question, since I haven't seen the permits down at the other end of the table, are these groins all permitted? TRUSTEE KING: I haven't got the history in here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think Rob submitted to us permits. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, for your information, that big dock isn't on Bredermeir's property. It's the next one, it's Henry. MR. HERMANN: I apologize. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Brownell, do you have what he submitted? It's just a question, I don't need to see them. TRUSTEE KING: We have a permit for '94. MR. HERMANN: That was to Dan Kelly. I think the original Department of the Army permit, which of course would predate the DEe's jurisdiction, that was issued to David Spoen, Board of Trustees 15 June 21,2006 April 29, 1964 for the original construction of the pier and that groin beneath it. The next permit of record is from the DEC in 1982, that allows for the resheathing of both groins, and then again in 1994 from the DEC and this Board to res heath both groins. The language of your permit says replace wooden sheathing on two jetties, but it would be those two structures. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you show us on Mr. Bredermeir's picture which are those two jetties? MR. HERMANN: One of them you're not going to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I see is from '64 the first time on an Army Corps permit or Army Engineer at the time permit to construct a pier and jetty; was there anything, any permit from this Board? MR. HERMANN: From 1964? Not that I have a record of. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know that, but subsequent to that. In other words, were those jetties permitted in another permit? MR. HERMANN: Permit #4349 issued by this Board on July 11, 1994. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: '94 would be the earliest we have. MR. HERMANN: That's the earliest I see to replace lower stringer on bulkhead, replace wooden sheathing on two jetties, and extend existing dock facility, et cetera, et cetera. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this Board had any jurisdiction previous to '92 in the bay. MR. HERMANN: Not in the bay, neither did the DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see in '94 on this Board's permit or the Town Trustees at the time permit, replacing wooden sheathing on two jetties. What I was looking for is to see if at the time that they grandfathered in the jetties themselves. MR. HERMANN: This permit would in effect have, but you would have to ask Mr. Johnston about that. Was the Board issuing grandfathered permits in '94? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERMANN: So it would have had to have been a proactive choice by Costello Marine or this Board's action to grandfather it and then issue a permit, but you didn't always do that, sometimes the permits themselves just automatically legalized. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, why would the Board issue a permit to a jetty they didn't agree with at the time to resheath it. So I'm making the assumption that the Board at the time did not have a problem. MR. JOHNSTON: Legitimized it. Board of Trustees 16 June 21, 2006 MR. HERMANN: That's my inference. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think the only question in front of us is should it be a fixed dock or a floating. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, I agree with you, John. My question would have been would your clients agree to consider the toe armor or whatever because that's your choice. It's a recommendation that a neighbor is making and it's not appropriate for this Board to say -- MR. HERMANN: I don't think it's appropriate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not for this Board to say you must do - in my opinion -- in order to get a permit, which is what he was asking for. MR. HERMANN: We're usually open to the suggestion where it's something you offer as opposed to impose. And I don't think it's an appropriate suggestion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly what I'm saying, I think we need to consider the permit request as-is. TRUSTEE KING: And the LWRP, the review is only for the extension of the dock structure and is found inconsistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it because of the eel grass, scallops? MR. HERMANN: Again for the record, Jim, it's not a dock extension. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's not an extension, it's fixed or floating. TRUSTEE KING: Fixed structure. MR. HERMANN: But the removal of -- TRUSTEE KING: Right, right. MR. HERMANN: I just want that to be clear. TRUSTEE KING: Dock will protrude an additional 14 feet into Orient Harbor from the existing length. Large historic populations of eel grass were found in the area, and the area continues to exhibit prime habitat for eel grass. It is unknown if eel grass currently exists in the area where the dock is proposed to be extended. Physical impact, shading on the bottom where the dock is located and the permanent loss of the natural habitat for the eel grass, or even existing eel grass populations. Proposed action would result in physical loss of ecological components as indicated above. And then there's a whole list. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just as a discussion for that, if it's a fixed dock, you're going to get more light and everything else rather than a floating, so that argument is a little false. I think the biggest question is do we want to leave it open so people can go in and dredge. That's the biggest question, and whether that 20 by 6 feet or whatever it is is significant or not? Board of Trustees 17 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words where the float is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Whether that 20 foot length is significant. TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to tie a boat there, Rob? MR. HERMANN: I hope so. TRUSTEE KING: How much water, how much draught do they need? MR. HERMANN: Jim, I don't know exactly what their boat is. For better or worse, I am compelled by the DEC's requirements to extend out into this depth of water. So whether it's by float or by fixed, I have to end up where I am now and where the dock is now. TRUSTEE KING: Are these tie off piles you're showing here eight inch pile? MR. HERMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Were there also two piles inland? MR. HERMANN: Yes. There are four total piles that would serve to tie up a boat on each side. TRUSTEE KING: There's four piles? MR. HERMANN: Correct with a slightly wider slip created on the north side than on the south. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be very hesitant to approve at this time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can transfer the permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Docks have been turned down. There's been two or three applications discouraged just for the reason of the -- MR. JOHNSTON: Can you get Jack's input before you make a decision? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. Jack, did you look at this? MR. MCGREEVEY: We did, based on the limited information that was on the packet as we received. We approved it as the application reads. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you didn't have the history and the background? MR. MCGREEVEY: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, do you have a problem with us splitting this up tonight maybe tabling part of it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're considering approving bulkhead but not sure about -- MR. JOHNSTON: Transferring the permit and approving the bulkhead. MR. HERMANN: I don't know if there's anything to gain by that. They're not going to do the work between now and July Board of Trustees 18 June 21, 2006 12th or whenever the field inspections are. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we table it then, we want to take a closer look. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? MR. HERMANN: If you want Tom Samuels to meet you out at the site, I can certainly speak to him, Rambo is the contractor. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if you could during this period of time speak to your client about your neighbor's concerns to see if they would be willing to entertain them at all. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you can address this inconsistency with the LWRP. MR. HERMANN: Do I have to? TRUSTEE KING: You don't have to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I seconded. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: The problem I have with that, Jim, is that every dock is found to be inconsistent by the Planning Board staff. So their entire approach is inconsistent with the law you just wrote. And at some point, somebody of some import is going to take everyone to task on that. So I hope it's figured out. Every dock we propose you read off an inconsistency, yet your law specifically allows for docks. MS. CUSACK: Not every dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I think we should move on. TRUSTEE KING: These amendments usually don't take very long. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS 1. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CLEAVES POINT CONDOMINIUMS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to place approximately 200 cubic yards of clean beach sand fill to construct dune-like feature in curving area approximately 165' long by 10' wide; install Board of Trustees 19 June 21, 2006 low-profile rock revetment on filter cloth on seaward face of sand fill, using 200-300 pound rocks in an area approximately 135' long and 8' by 12' wide. Located: 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-15 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Cleaves Point Condominiums. As a result of our meeting during inspection, here is a new plan, which is based upon the on-site inspection from the U.S.DA Natural Resources outfit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is that Allen Connell? MR. FITZGERALD: His associate Brian Zimmer, who was able to meet me there on Monday, and this is what we came up with. It includes, and I have three copies of his report here, which he -- TRUSTEE KING: This looks a lot more like what we talked about in the field. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We asked for a 40 foot and that looks like it's there. This looks exactly like what we talked about out in the field. MR. FITZGERALD: He goes into some detail as you will see from the report about the grass species to be planted, mainly American beach grass and he suggested the addition of some other species because apparently they found that the mixtures are more stable over time than the American beach grass by itself. It will require the placement of clean sandy soil to get it up to the elevation that he is indicating here, which is 6.4 feet. And I think that pretty much covers what we talked about on the site on last Tuesday. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for the record, what we have before us is a request for 165' long by 10' wide rock revetment and you're saying you want to reduce that to a 40' by 10' wide. Thank you, go ahead. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to get that into the record. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, the question that you had and we also had at the same time, was the immediate stabilization of that. Remember-- MR. FITZGERALD: He suggests the use of a geo textile mat to protect -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So that's included in the planting to immediately stabilize what was put down and then start to grow. MR. FITZGERALD: The American beach grass would be with Board of Trustees 20 June 21, 2006 plants, but the other species he talks about would be seed, which he says it would be good to put in before, so that the manipulation of the ground during the planting process would assist in spreading the seeds out, and the getting them in good shape to grow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was Mr. Zimmerman going to put this in writing to you? TRUSTEE KING: It's all here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, we got it, good. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Excellent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the rocks in the area? TRUSTEE KING: Change the description, that's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I wanted to enter that into the record, have to change the description. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They were happy with that? All right. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and that's a new description for Cleaves Point Condominiums, it's a for a rock revetment 40' long and 8' to 12' wide, as shown on the detailed plan we have, and the proposed placement of 200 cubic yards of clean light-textured sandy soil to create a dune-like feature 120 plus/minus long and 15 feet plus/minus wide to be planted with native species and other such vegetation as recommended U.S.DAN.R.C.S. Suggested Planting Plan dated 6/21/06. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ANGELO & JOSEPHINE PADOVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the existing shed. Located: 615 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23 and 24.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Pat Moore, for the applicant. I had from the previous meeting you asked for measurements, exact measurements because there's a lot there -- I had given you the surveyor's measurements, but you wanted more detail. So what I did was I took precise measurements of the original structure, it's obvious when you look at it, then there is the decking, and the stairs that go along the decking, and the original structure had a roof, a covered over about four feet, I would say, I don't have the drawings with me, and Board of Trustees 21 June 21,2006 then beyond that it looks like the original was a trellis that was Plexiglas or some kind of clear material was put on top. They have used this for their protection of materials -- originally they wanted to build the house, so they have been accumulating materials to build a house, and they have been protecting that material with some plywood. The only recent change to that structure is some plywood that's protecting the north side from the elements. But aside from that, everything else has been there since Amiaga was the owner of the property before the Pad ovans and before that. There was a question that you had? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have several questions. MS. MOORE: There was a question with regard to what I thought -- it's actually on the seaward side of the structure is a -- what they told me and I misunderstood them when they told me -- it's a platform with the steps going up, it's used both as a platform and as like a fish cutting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have a picture of it here. MS. MOORE: Perfect. That piece is excluded from my drawing because I thought it was a table that is detached and actually it can be detached. They would like to have some steps that come from that direction. We can keep it that way, but it's not crucial, either way. It works well as a fish cutting table, I'm sure there's a formal term for that, and they just added some steps so they could get access to materials from that side of the building. That's alii have for you. I don't know if you have additional questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll start with this structure. We have a picture of it and to us it was a set of steps with a platform to gain access to the deck. So to us, it is a set of stairs. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we prefer since there are a set of stairs around the corner from that on the east side that those stairs remain on the east side and these stairs in front be removed because it's encroaching towards the beach, and we would rather eliminate any structure that's encroaching towards the beach. MS. MOORE: You don't have any problem that with that? I thought it was a table. It's not even attached. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our concern and I think you have addressed this with this cabana, is that when we went out and looked at it, it appears to have grown in size because of temporary plywood that has been put up, whether it was temporary or Board of Trustees 22 June 21, 2006 temporary/permanent or permanent. We want to make crystal clear with this that what your clients are talking about doing here is just repairing the existing 10 foot roughly and two inches by 14 foot structure, and we don't want to go out find that all of a sudden the whole envelope is being considered a structure here. MS. MOORE: I have identified the decking versus the enclosure versus I think on the east side where he had protection of the plywood, I converted that to storage area so there would be some protection, because there are windows on either side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There's a window noted there; there would be no reason to put a window in and then block it. MS. MOORE: Any objection to keeping it open? They don't want to look out to the air. It has a window that someday down the line somebody might say I don't need the protection from the northeaster there, I'll take that protection off. It's been useful storage area for them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure we're talking about this roughly this 10'2" by 14" structure, that's the structure that the improvements are being proposed to. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the windows are as per drawn now, originally those were probably not windows, they were probably shutters in those days that opened up and you're looking to replace what were probably shutters with actual windows? MS. MOORE: We need windows, windows that probably will have shutters in front of them for protection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The deck you want to remain as-is. MS. MOORE: The deck may require some restoration as well, so okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, but that's not to be increased in size in any way and the cover over it will remain as-is? MS. MOORE: With the trellis extension -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Over the last part of the deck going out towards the bay. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There were a set of stairs on the east side coming down from above the woods there, coming down approximately to the structure. I don't know whether they were ever permitted; would you like to include them in here? MS. MOORE: Why don't we do that, yes, include that. They're passable, but it would be nice to be able to spruce them up, one good storm and they might not be so passable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We couldn't see inside the shed, our Board of Trustees 23 June 21, 2006 impression is there's no electric or plumbing inside the shed. MS. MOORE: Well, the plumbing, there is water, that's where you wash the fish, but the water's coming from the neighboring property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The main house? MS. MOORE: The main house. And the electrical I think there's a light bulb. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And there's no intention inside of building a bathroom? MS. MOORE: No bathroom. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the main house we had a question the roof runoff, there were gutters going down to the driveway. The driveway was subsequently paved over, asphalted, so the water comes off the roof, goes into the driveway and goes straight down onto the beach, and we are going to ask as a part of this permit that that be addressed also, that that roof runoff be addressed with gutters and dry wells. MS. MOORE: You have gutters on the house -- when you asked about that, unfortunately it was just resurfacing, the black top resurfacing, the only place for dry wells is over on the grass on the side, so either dry wells or French drain whatever is more appropriate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's not going off towards the sound. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Conservation Advisory Committee did recommend approval. And it was exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, did you say there is electric in the building? MS. MOORE: I think so. TRUSTEE KING: How does it get there; do you know? MS. MOORE: Also from the house, everything is derived from the house. There is a utility pole there. I think some day down the line if they were to sell the house, they could use the cabana, they could live off the water and use the cabana as their own for the beach, so it would be helpful to have independent from the house electricity and water. TRUSTEE KING: They need a building permit for that. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure because it's a shed. It's a cabana, but it's not habitable. TRUSTEE KING: Still, if you have a separate electric source. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was a question we had whether we should permit electricity and water in that building. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Couldn't we approve what's there with the stipulation that no additional plumbing or electric be added Board of Trustees 24 June 21, 2006 to this building. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We don't know if there is electricity. So now you say yes and all of a sudden we have 100 amp service there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, can you ask your client? MS. MOORE: They wanted to put a light bulb in. If they don't own the house next door, they have to be able to at least turn a light bulb on. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are these separate entities these two pieces of properties? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's a single and separate double lot, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, it was just pointed out in a picture we have here, there appears to be a set of stairs going into the back of this building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: On the west side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to come up and look at this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we say that one set of stairs will be the stairs. MS. MOORE: That will be the stairs and we'll use those. One set of steps on the west side. MS. MOORE: If I can show him the pictures so he can see what we're talking about. Mr. Padovan, come up. MR. PADOVAN: Used to be because many years ago the sand used to be up, the sound, the erosion, it go down so I move the steps, let sand go up and down like a yo-yo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They were steps at one time and you're saying you don't need them now? Is there anybody else who would like to make any comments? Then I make a motion to close the public hearing on this matter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve this permit for Pat Moore on behalf of Angelo and Josephine Padovan with several stipulations, that we're strictly making repairs to what's on your diagram as existing building, which is 10 foot 2 by 14; that there will be no habitation of this facility; that there will be no additional electric or water other than what is currently there added to this facility. MS. MOORE: Can it stay independent because right now as I said it's connected to the main house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not supposed to be inhabited so there shouldn't be a need for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you put it independent that's an addition to what is there. In other words, you're just taking it and borrowing, you're using it from the other house that's there. If they put its own water and electric Board of Trustees 25 June 21, 2006 there, that's an addition to what you have, and we don't want that right now. That you would have to come back to us in a separate permit that would make it totally different. This is just a shed. MS. MOORE: It's a cabana. I mean, if you want an ice chest to put your drinks, most cabanas have electricity so you can keep your cold drinks, I'm just looking around town what a cabana usually carries, it's certainly electricity to keep a drink cold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we're going to say is there's no electrical or water than what is there right now; that there is one set of steps that are located on the east side; that the steps and platform that's in front or the north side will be removed, and the remnants of those steps that are on the back of the building will be removed and that as a condition of this permit also that for the main house that their roof runoff will be addressed with dry wells so there be will not be runoff from the roof going into the beach. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We want to make sure that the sides aren't filled in on the decks. MS. MOORE: I have it as open decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, the deck on the cabana remains open decking. Based on the plans June 7, 2006. TRUSTEE KING: The electric and water comes from the same source as it is now, not a new source. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I said, as is present, no additional. MR. JOHNSTON: Or alteration. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that we are adding to this permit the stairs that are to the west coming down from the road from Soundview or from the direction of Soundview Avenue to the vicinity of the cabana. What we are permitting is any opening that's there right now, whether it's a window or door that's noted to be replaced, it will be replaced with the very same size, not be increased in size. TRUSTEE KING: Actually those measurements should be in that drawing. MS. MOORE: I don't know that I had the window opening sized. I didn't want to spend thousands of dollars on a drawing to come back. I can have this drawn to a better scale and put the window openings that are there. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like some sort of a doorway. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's definitely on the side where the stairs are. TRUSTEE KING: We need the measurements on all those, Board of Trustees 26 June 21, 2006 otherwise if something's changed, we have nothing previous to tell it was enlarged. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you're going to do that, I would also include the electric service; is it a 20 amp line? We say whatever's there and all of a sudden we have a 200 amp line there, we have no idea. MS. MOORE: The problem you're creating to make this structure safe, you have to meet state building code requirements. You have to put something that an underwriter would approve. If you put a light bulb in the shed, you still have to have a certain amount of wattage there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you don't need a light bulb, that was our original impression when we looked at it; we didn't want any electric in the building. MS. MOORE: Say you spend a day on the beach and the light starts going down, you need a light bulb. TRUSTEE KING: Table this until -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that what's happened here is we have closed the public hearing, and I have made a motion to approve, and I have been going through stipulations of that motion to approve, what we can do at this point is make a vote on that, and then if it's rejected then we can take a vote to table it. MR. JOHNSTON: David, just withdraw your motion and withdraw the second if you want to. MS. MOORE: I'm not trying to cause problems. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's just too many questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I withdraw the motion of approval and make a motion to table this until we have a more detailed drawing that includes electrical, plumbing and exact sizes of replacement windows and/or doors. TRUSTEE KING: How about some photos of interior? MS. MOORE: How are you going to repair -- you have old wood. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have made a motion to table it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. I have my reasons for being very uncomfortable with this. I just sat through an hour and a half of something the other day that this reminds me of. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to keep that in mind very specific and cooperative. TRUSTEE KING: Those plans are not very specific in my estimation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There's a motion and a second. All in Board of Trustees 27 June 21,2006 favor? ALL AYES. MS. MOORE: Just keep in mind this is a single and separate. We didn't get a single-family dwelling. Keep that in the back of your mind. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: A storage shed. MS. MOORE: It's a cabana. TRUSTEE KING: The type of use a cabana gets I have no problem with. MS. MOORE: I know what Mr. King is looking for as far as a cabana, that's why a light bulb to me is generally in a cabana. WETLAND PERMITS 1. JOHN & NINA WINTER request a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool, buried propane tank, retaining wall, perimeter pool fence and garden shed, and install drywells to contain the pool backwash. Located: 590 North View Drive, Orient. SCTM#13-1-5.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. WINTER: Good evening, Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board. My name is John Winter, I'm the homeowner and I have with me evening my wife Nina Winter. I'd like to ask the Board for the purpose of the proposed operation is to be granted a permit to place a modest in-ground swimming pool, buried propane tank, standard pool equipment on our residential property. Our property is a waterfront bluff site and the existing home in the proposed actions are an elevation of 90 feet high up on the bluff and 280 feet from the high tide line. The present home is newly constructed and the certificate of occupancy was May of '05 and has the proper permits in place to have been constructed at a 55 foot setback from the top of the bluff. On February 8, 2006 Chairman Oliva and the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to construct and place the proposed in-ground swimming pool at a setback of 55 feet to the existing bluff. And the comment was, in the summary of the letter from the ZBA, no evidence has been submitted to suggest that this proposed swimming pool will have an adverse impact on environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and written testimony dated January 25, 2006 from the soil district technician with Suffolk County stated that the bluff is in good condition and the pool is sited as far possible back from the bluff and installation is feasible. And the ZBA also stated the SEQRA determination Board of Trustees 28 June 21, 2006 as follows: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration of the application and determined this review falls under Type 2 category of the state's list of actions without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. The Suffolk County Soil recommended that we install a retaining wall with the pool, and also suggested we place a dry well for any type of backwashing or if the pool should be a little bit overflowed with two or three inches of rain, which we intend to do. And that particular dry well is indicated on our plans. We have a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, it's a letter of nonjurisdiction. They also claim in that letter dated March 23, 2006, the presently proposed structure is also landward of the previously determined jurisdictional boundary and therefore doesn't require a permit from this department. I have a letter from, as I said, from the Suffolk County Water and they acknowledge that I planted 2000 plumes of Cape American beach grass to protect our bluff. And we take that quite seriously. We want to make sure that the pool is set back as far as feasible from the bluff, and maintain the bluff, not to cut down any trees and have no water runoff whatsoever onto the bluff at any time, and any type of water backwash will be going into the dry well. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Did the CAC look at this? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And they recommended approval. Okay. We were all out there and looked at it. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP. I only think it was found inconsistent because it's less than 100 feet from the end of the bluff. The proposed setback of the pool from the bluff is 55 feet, a minimum separation distance of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 97. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it's behind the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it a policy that we do the 50 feet? TRUSTEE KING: We have done that with the bulkheads. It's actually in the code. MS. CUSACK: It's 100 feet. TRUSTEE KING: But the way you have located this and looking at the property I can't see how it's going to have any impact. MR. WINTER: We set the pool off, Mr. President, as far as possible to the side of the house. It's not going to be impacting our neighbors. We have a lot of privacy because Board of Trustees 29 June 21,2006 of the vegetation there. The bluff is fully vegetated I demonstrated that by the photograph, the aerial there. TRUSTEE KING: We were there, we saw it. MR. WINTER: I'd like to present also to the Board, if I may approach, the affidavit for the posting of the sign and the affidavit for the proof of mailings. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments, anything else? Are there any other comments from the public on this application? If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Even though it was found inconsistent with the LWRP it is located as far as he can get it. I think it's very well designed and it will have absolutely no impact on the bluff. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I still second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. JOAN & HAROLD KIEFER request a Wetland Permit to construct a deck onto the existing dwelling, and for the existing beach stairs. Located: 1115 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM#14-3-3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This was founds consistent by the LWRP, I looked at it two months ago, and we found the stairs, if you remember, there was no problem with the entire project. If there's anybody from the public who would wish to discuss pro or con? Finding nobody from the public, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Joan and Harold Kiefer as stated in the Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#52-2-20.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? CAC tabled it; it wasn't staked. We looked at this a long time ago too, Jack. The house is Board of Trustees 30 June 21, 2006 going to be right up close to the road. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that out of our jurisdiction from the wetlands? TRUSTEE KING: Basically from the tidal wetlands it's all out of our jurisdiction, but there's a little freshwater wetlands in the southwest corner that puts it within our jurisdiction. I know there wasn't any stakes there. You couldn't get down there it was so thick. MR. MCGREEVEY: My only concern, in my inspection, I wasn't able to get into the property to see the topography of the land and I would recommend that no construction work or ground improvement be done until someone can get into that property. It was very heavily wooded, a lot of underbrush just to see the lay of the land before they move any earth around to smooth it off. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They actually told us how to get around down to the bay side, both times we walked through properties to go around and see the bay side of it. TRUSTEE KING: We didn't go right to where the house was going to be. We just felt it was so close to the road. I don't know. MS. CUSACK: Mr. Drouzas is here if you have any questions, just so you know. TRUSTEE KING: It's about 65 feet from the edge of that freshwater wetlands. We talked about a 25 foot nondisturbance buffer around this freshwater wetland, and I don't think we had a problem with the rest of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What if we stipulated in the permit that when the lot was cleared and they had the house staked, they would have to have an inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we place the hay bales at the 25 foot during construction and then leave that nondisturbed because it is 60. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think Jack's concern was -- TRUSTEE KING: What change is going to make in the topography of the land is what you're concerned with. MR. MCGREEVEY: CAC's concern is that depressed area where the wetland is indicated, that it not be disturbed, that it be protected. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They're saying put hay bales up prior at the 25 foot buffer area. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we condition this that there's an inspection as soon as the building envelope has been identified and cleared and staked, that there's an inspection to be made before construction starts. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good then you can see everything Board of Trustees 31 June 21, 2006 better. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. It has been found inconsistent because it's 100 feet from the freshwater wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which we addressed with the buffers. TRUSTEE KING: We're going to have a 25 nondisturbance buffer around it. And it's out of our jurisdiction from the tidal wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He is here, do you want to make sure he's clear? TRUSTEE KING: Can you hear us all right what we're talking about with these plans? MR. DROUZAS: My name is Peter Drouzas. I do not understand exactly. MS. CUSACK: Come up so he can show you. TRUSTEE KING: We're talking about there's a little freshwater wetland here, we want to put a 25 nondisturbance buffer from that wetland, like a row of hay bales. When you get this area cleared, we want to see the house staked and we'll come out and look at it before you start construction. We're going to approve this with these conditions that when you get this area cleared from the house, you stake the four corners and we come out and inspect just before you start construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From this line we drew in here and this all stays nondisturbed. MR. DROUZAS: This area here I went last summer was dry. I went last year before Christmas it was dry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It wasn't dry when we went there. MR. DROUZAS: I understand but when you went there you see the drains from the other houses. TRUSTEE KING: This area here, no disturbance, maybe down the road if you want to have a path to the water, can you come in and apply for the path to the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we put it in now, tell them they can have a four foot wide path, make it a non-disturbance. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, one other consideration on that, since the building lot is very heavily wooded and there's some fairly large trees in there, if there's a possibility of preserving as many trees outside of the footprint and close to the footprint, eight inches in diameter. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application Board of Trustees 32 June 21,2006 with some stipulations, that a row of staked hay bales be placed 25 foot around the freshwater wetlands, and there's a 100 foot setback line from the wetlands, from that line seaward there will be no disturbance, and when the area for the house has been cleared, we want to see the four corners of the house staked and an initial inspection will be made, and any large trees that are not in the way of the building -- in other words, we don't want to see the whole lot completely cleared, any large trees that can be retained should be retained on the premises, there's dry wells proposed for the roof runoff, they're on the survey. And if the owner wants access path to the waterfront, he can have a four foot path through the nondisturbance area to be hand-trimmed only, no machinery in there to make a path, but there can be a four foot path down to the waterfront. And I think that covers everything we talked about. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. FRANK & ANTOINETTE NOTARO request a Wetland Permit to construct a covered porch with a hot tub and install an in-ground swimming pool with a chain link fence around pool and rear of the house. Located: 625 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#63-7-30.1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. NOTARO: Good evening, my name is Frank Notaro, I and my wife Antoinette are here. We're the owners of the property, and we're here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak about this particular application? I can just make comments that we looked at it, it was found inconsistent by the LWRP simply because you're within 100 feet and that's a natural, automatic thing. The pool is as far away as you can get it from the water. You can't move it any closer to the house, and I think we all looked at it and didn't see major problems. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's just a concern about the larger trees, hopefully they wouldn't interfere with your plans, the one that has the rope strangling it. MR. NOTARO: We also have three children in college this fall, so that pool is getting farther and farther off. TRUSTEE KING: Empty pockets. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments from the public? CAC? Board of Trustees 33 June 21,2006 MR. MCGREEVEY: The material used for the patio. CAC would request that be pervious; what type of material would you use on the patio? MR. NOTARO: The actual framing for the patio will be the ACO lumber. And the decking generally we use the iron wood. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Talking the patio around the pool? MR. NOTARO: Patio around the pool is at ground level and proposed slate at ground level. It can be any kind of pervious material. As I say this is way down the road. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, dry wells for backwash? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's in there. MR. NOTARO: We're going to re-side the house and put gutters and dry wells on the entire house. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other questions? I make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. MR. NOTARO: Can I ask a question, are there any plans in the works? We have about a 24 inch road runoff pipe coming down from the Main Road, is that on the agenda? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Through your property? MR. NOTARO: No, at the head of the creek; is that on the agenda? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is on our list of 120 right now. can't tell you what the priority is right now, but it is on the list. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There is a list in Town of all of it, and they have set up priorities, and you might want to go in and voice your opinion about that. MR. NOTARO: Because we are concerned about that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I made the motion and there was a second; all in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Now I make a motion of Frank and Antoinette Notaro to construct a covered porch with hot tub and install an in-ground swimming pool with chain link fence around the pool. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. CUSACK: Do you want dry wells? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to add that. I thought it was on here before. We're going to add a dry well for the backwash, that should be included in the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 63' fixed dock, 4' by 16' ramp and 6' by 20' floating Board of Trustees 34 June 21, 2006 dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-8 TRUSTEE KING: We tabled this last time because we wanted to see the stake moved, but they only moved the stake about five feet. Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Jayamaha. We have been kicking this around for a little while. TRUSTEE KING: Too long. MR. FITZGERALD: I think you have been out there several times, and what we are offering now is what we hope would be the best solution for everybody, including some of the regulatory agencies. I think Heather or Lauren said that you were interested in moving the dock further to the west, and the problem there is that if we do that, and don't angle it to parallel the property line, it crosses the extension of the property line and at least the Department of State within the last month has been on me about another project in which they're concerned about the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. TRUSTEE KING: Do they know how to properly extend those property lines? Because there is a process. MR. FITZGERALD: I would hope so. TRUSTEE KING: If what you're saying is what they have done, they're doing it wrong. MR. FITZGERALD: Would you give me a note to my confessor? What are you saying? Are you saying that the lines should be perpendicular to the shore? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: And you think they will understand that? TRUSTEE KING: They can look it up. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There are alternate ways. It isn't by law that it goes straight out, follows the property. There are alternative ways. And there's a lot of history. I happened to do some research on it at one point years ago so I'm not familiar with it exactly, but I do know that there are a number of variations to the particular case. It isn't just that it follows the property line. There are a number of court cases where it bends this way and that way to accommodate a particular situation. TRUSTEE KING: It depends on the shape of the shoreline, where it's a cove or peninsula, it depends on where the channel lies. There's a whole bunch of criteria on how these property lines are supposed to be extended out. MR. FITZGERALD: Who decides, Jim? Can I go to the Department of State and say the Southold Town Board of Trustees have decided? TRUSTEE KING: Sure, why not. Board of Trustees 35 June 21, 2006 MR. HERMANN: Well, yes, because you have the LWRP, right, Brownell? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, I'm hoping. TRUSTEE KING: In that particular location where that gutter goes up to the east and west that's the channel. So the property line goes perpendicular to that channel. Instead of that property line going out like that, now it gets changed over. It isn't rocket science. What do you want to do? MR. FITZGERALD: Here it's not rocket science but in Albany, it may be. Is this because of the way that giant boat of Matt-a-Mar Marina is sticking out opposite of this? TRUSTEE KING: No, not really, but partly. MR. FITZGERALD: Because with this the way it is, this dock takes up less than one-third the width of the waterway. TRUSTEE KING: We realize that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A concern that I had was where it has been staked the last two times because the stake was moved slightly, my concern is that there is insufficient room for boats coming into Matt-a-Mar there to navigate through. The stake is at the end of the dock, we then could have a boat back into the boat extending even beyond that. My concern was that where it's presently staked, there is not going to be enough room for the boats to come in to Matt-a-Mar, swing around and come through there, I think it's a dangerous situation. TRUSTEE KING: We have always tried to keep the docks more or less towards the center away from the sides of the property lines. MR. FITZGERALD: I hear what you're saying, my point is that this dock is using less than it's allotted one-third of the waterway, and the boats and docks on the other side are using more than their one-third of the waterway. And if, for instance, the situation that Dave is describing took place tomorrow, it would be a significant problem because there's a problem because there's a boat tied up next to the float that's got to have at least a 20 foot beam. So we -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're talking at Matt-a-Mar? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So we have to move this because that big boat is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim has offered to go out and stake it where we want it. If you would allow that, to have Jim stake it, and then see if that is a reasonable place for you, where we would like to see it, where we feel it's not a danger of navigation. MR. FITZGERALD: If we just move this same dock, how far Board of Trustees 36 June 21, 2006 would you like it to move? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We were going over near the edge of the property. MR. FITZGERALD: Right now it's 60 feet from where the property line crosses -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 60 feet from the western property line? MR. FITZGERALD: Western property line along the north property line. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think we were talking 15 feet from the edge or something to that effect. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're saying here, where you have this drawing, the stake is right around there. MR. FITZGERALD: This is what you have seen so, if indeed if it's possible extend -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Over the property line. MR. FITZGERALD: Does Mr. Long Island Oyster Company have anything to say about that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have anything in the file from him. MR. FITZGERALD: Because he doesn't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I think this needs to be restaked. I want to see it staked, that's why -- I'll say again, I would like to see it staked again, the neighbors can be notified, Matt-a-Mar can be notified appropriately so everybody can have their shot. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And Jim volunteered to put it out for you. TRUSTEE KING: Like John said -- MR. FITZGERALD: And my other choice is? TRUSTEE KING: There are numerous court cases on these extensions of property lines. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was Pat Moore that came up the first time. MS. MOORE: I'm right here. TRUSTEE KING: Remember when a long time ago on when property lines were extended? MS. MOORE: There's a whole treatise on the riparian rights with extension of property lines when you're dealing with limited code. Everybody gets their piece of the pie. TRUSTEE KING: I remember if there's a channel, the lines are perpendicular to that channel. If the property line comes out on an angle, it goes perpendicular. MR. FITZGERALD: You will stake it according to that with the red drawing on it? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I'll take your drawing and I'll put a stake at the end of where the float is going to be. So Board of Trustees 37 June 21, 2006 we're going to table this, restake it and revisit it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Andrew Nikolich on behalf of BASILIO ESPOSITO requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing dwelling by constructing 706 square feet of additional living space on the ground floor, construct a new one-car attached garage and construct a second story structure over the ground floor level. Construct a 10' by 8' accessory building shed, install a new sanitary system and install a new pervious driveway. Located: 1745 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-4-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIKOLICH: I'm Andrew Nikolich and this is Basilio Esposito, and hopefully we're here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this application? Heather, on your comments you said information needed on new plans, he will change location of the garage. Do you remember that at all or maybe that was prior to our inspection? MS. CUSACK: Maybe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You'll need staked hay bales and dry wells, we spoke about that at the inspection, I believe? MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP reviewed it as consistent. MS. CUSACK: I guess because he added that later he added the garage, I think it was very clear when we were there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It wasn't in the original application. But it's on the plans now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommended approval with the condition of dry wells installed to contain the roof runoff. But they also were looking for a 10 foot nonturf buffer installed landward of the concrete wall. Jack, that was your recommendation? MR. MCGREEVEY: 10 foot nonturf buffer landward of the present concrete wall. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you have a problem with doing that while you were constructing? MR. NIKOLICH: How deep, above the ground? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It means taking out the turf that's there. MR. NIKOLICH: No problem. Board of Trustees 38 June 21,2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? If there are no other comments from the public, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Basilio Esposito for the existing dwelling to construct a 706 square foot additional living space, construct new car garage, construct second story structure and a 10' by 8' accessory building with sanitary system and new pervious driveway all located 1745 Bay Shore Road. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Denise Heyse on behalf of DAVID & MARY JANE CASSARO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20' by 60' in-ground swimming pool with surrounding patio and a 10' by 30' pergola on the northwest side of the pool. Located: 3345 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM#37-7-10.2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. GORMAN: Hi, I'm Bill Gorman, New England Barns and Denise is an employee of mine, and she can't make it tonight so I'm going to represent this. Just a couple of notes, the pool and pergola, we'd like to put it on a pre-existing manicured lawn. The work that was done on site was approved by the DEC, the previous work. Do you have the site plan there that shows the wood retaining wall? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one. MR. GORMAN: The wooden bulkhead is about four feet high. This sits behind the bulkhead on the elevated side, and the wall separates the house from the manicured lawn and the natural, unobstructed beach. We have a positive letter from a neighbor suggesting that the Cassaros are environmentally concerned and are fine, fine upstanding citizens. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else here who would like to speak on behalf of this permit? Just a couple of notations here, it was determined consistent with the LWRP. We wanted to make sure that there was no more clearing for this pool done going towards the northeast corner. In other words, you get into a heavily vegetated area, and we wanted to make sure there was not going to be clearing in there. We did note there was a proposed dry well for the backwash. The Conservation Advisory Committee recommended approval with Board of Trustees 39 June 21, 2006 the condition that the wood wall, meaning the retaining wall, is continued along the south end of the pool to the west boundary as a retaining wall, which I believe you were just addressing. Any other comments from the Board on this? I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve Number 7, the permit for David and Mary Jane Cassaro as printed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. William C. Goggins, Esq., on behalf of JOHN DILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and sanitary system. Located: 60 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#145-2-1.2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MR. GOGGINS: This is William C. Goggins, from the law firm of Goggins and Palumbo, 13105 Main Road Mattituck, New York, for the applicant. This is a very straightforward application. Mr. Diller is constructing a new home on waterfront property. We located the proposed structure in accordance with the code that it would be even with the structures on either side of it. And we would ask to have the Board approve the application as it was written. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Could you repeat that last two sentences; what did you say about the houses being in line? MR. GOGGINS: When I sat down with Mr. Diller, he wanted to get it as close to the water as possible, but we decided, pursuant to the code, to put it even with the other two houses. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Understood. That's what the code is. MR. GOGGINS: Right. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Fine. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's in line with the other houses. TRUSTEE KING: We talked in the field about moving this house back. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what I made clear that he's willing to move it back. MR. GOGGINS: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're including the decks. MR. GOGGINS: Well the code says, new and remodeled homes cannot be situated or modified such that they project closer to the wetland boundary than the homes on either side of the Board of Trustees 40 June 21, 2006 subject lot, doesn't make a distinction between decks and the actual house. So, when we drew the line, that's what we did. It's also, it's not directly perpendicular to the water or parallel, however you want to say it, it's kind of angled. TRUSTEE KING: There's plenty of room to back it up. It isn't restricted in any way to back it up a little bit. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, wasn't the southwest corner of that construction, whether it could be a deck or patio or house, wasn't the southwest corner projecting beyond the alignment with the house to the west and the house to the east; that was our concern. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what we're talking about. TRUSTEE KING: We want to move the house back about 10 feet. MR. MCGREEVEY: We recommended moving the house north. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's reasonable. MR. GOGGINS: I understand what you're saying, I think if you read the adverse of the language in that section, 97-27, that you can't move it closer to the water as your adjacent houses, if you read it adversely, there's no reason to move it back. TRUSTEE KING: There's nothing that says we can't. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're not allowed to build within 100 feet. That's what the code says, so we're moving it back further to make it more in line with the code. It's inconsistent and we're trying to mitigate the inconsistency by moving it back. MR. MCGREEVEY: What are we talking about? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's 10 feet. MR. MCGREEVEY: There's plenty of room. TRUSTEE KING: That would make the southwest corner of this house 54 feet from the bulkhead rather than 44 feet. MR. GOGGINS: If you look at that survey, the proposed structure as it is is approximately 88 feet from the mean high tide mark. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would still like to see it back 10 feet. If we just keep being consistent, our policy is to do it from the house itself, not the decks. TRUSTEE KING: There's some inconsistencies here, it shows apparent low water mark along the bulkhead, and yet they have apparent low water shown on a previous survey. MR. GOGGINS: Apparently when this was initially surveyed it was a surge tide, and it indicated that the high tide mark was even higher, but there was a previous marking made by Young and Young, which shows where it's supposed to be. The mean high tide mark is different than when Joe found it when Board of Trustees 41 June 21, 2006 he surveyed the property. TRUSTEE KING: That shows a 40 foot beach at high tide, which is extremely unusual in that area, that much beach in front of the bulkhead. I would say that's inaccurate. But it's immaterial, the Board wants the house moved landward 10 feet. Any other comments? MR. GOGGINS: Actually, Mr. Diller is here, and he would like to make a comment. MR. DillER: John Diller, applicant. The houses to either side are seasonal residences. The house to the east, about 1920, has a roof porch, which is screened, and the house to the west, which was built in about '78 camp cottage, was done, has a wood deck, both of them are used about four months, two, three, four months of the year, and we considered putting a deck in front of the house that we want to build, and since we're building a house for year round use, we prefer it instead to have the front of the house be a flagstone floored, knee-walled, screened in summer, glassed in winter porch, with the west end having windows and a fireplace. The lots which were created in 1943 by my grandfather are admittedly narrow, and the fact that that would give some protection against people in using the deck and using the screen porch of the other house, lends itself to at least some semblance of privacy for all three users. To move the house back puts this house at a disadvantage versus the other two in the sense of creating a sort of tunnel look. The view opens to the east to Robbins Island, what the architect did, was to draw a line connecting the two adjoining houses and then not use that full envelope but come -- you'll notice rather than squaring the house off and creating a long, narrow, unattractive house, he's created pavilion or boxes that will break up that line that would be necessitated by the shape of the lot itself. Frankly, this house would be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the other two if it were moved back, as I say, the connecting line is seaward of the one-story porch that's on the proposal. All of this is about 17, 18 feet of elevation. It has a bulkhead that was built prior to 1947, shown on the Young and Young survey, which incidentally shows a high water mark where Young and Young still showed it when they surveyed in August of '05, and when Joe went in was one of the rare days of the year when the water was up to the bulkhead, very seldom that happens. Basically I think it doesn't present any problems of the wetlands basis in terms of waterfront and it fits well with the other two Board of Trustees 42 June 21, 2006 houses and yet gives this house the opportunity to stand on its own in perspective of the other two. TRUSTEE KING: I think the primary concern of the Board is environmental and trying to get us more consistent with this LWRP. I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I think 10 foot back is reasonable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Taking his comments into consideration, I still feel that 10 feet back because it is only 44 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I still feel somebody's going to be in front of somebody else, and those houses are already there and they have decks in front of them, not solid building. Just a comment. And a vegetative buffer maybe in front. There's nothing there, but we usually put that in anyway. TRUSTEE KING: You could have an eight to 10 foot vegetated non-turf buffer in front of that. By code, the code says 100 feet. It's just the way things are that we have to try to reconcile things. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, just a thought on this, I don't have the paperwork on it, but I recall being there last month, is it a possibility that the south end of that footprint of the proposed house can be reconfigured without moving the house north? Let's say because it's only the southwest corner that's out of line. TRUSTEE KING: No, because the whole -- I understand what they have done, they have done this house caddy-corner, that would really change things around too much. I don't think that that would work at all. I think simply moving the whole structure 10 feet is a good alternative. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the house be moved landward 10 feet; by code it's supposed to be 100 feet. It's very difficult to try and work these things out. I think this is a reasonable request from the Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? MR. JOHNSTON: So it's clear are you going to have him give a new drawing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need a new drawing showing 54 feet from that buffer. Board of Trustees 43 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: And we might as well also show dry wells for the roof runoff, and a 10 foot nonturf buffer behind the wooden bulkhead, landward of the wooden bulkhead. It would probably be a good idea to have a row of staked hay bales during construction. They can be put 10 feet landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's such a narrow piece of property the neighbors should be protected, put that in. TRUSTEE KING: Technically it really isn't going back 10 feet because it was on an angle. Probably be a good idea to have staked hay bales on the property lines so there's no disturbance to the next door neighbors. It's such a narrow lot. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the house be moved 10 feet landward, there's to be a staked row of hay bales on the property lines and across the seaward edge of the property behind the wooden bulkhead and along the eastern property line during construction, gutters and dry wells to contain the roof runoff, and there will be a nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead after construction and the hay bales are removed, 10 foot nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES. 9. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing fixed dock constructed new ramp, new fixed dock with a 42" by 12' ramp on four 3' by 20' floats and one 5' by 18' floating dock. Install 5' by 32' and two 6' by 20' new floating docks. Re-install two existing pilings and install two new pilings. located: Fox Island, Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-18 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record I recuse myself from this. MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, and I'm the agent for Gardiner's Bay Homeowner's Association. We made the application, and this application is very similar to the other two or three applications that we made on the same project within the last couple of years. The last project was designed and extended exactly the same amount offshore, the center line, and you will also Board of Trustees 44 June 21, 2006 notice that the sizes of the floats were held in abeyance I believe in the last meeting because one of the Trustees wished to see the docks reduced from an eight foot width to a 6 foot width, and we have done that. The same amount of distance offshore was proposed before, and the public hearing, a new application was made, and the new application straightens out the dock. Instead of having it on an angle where there's one acute angle on one side, which would only berth possibly a small, narrow boat or a canoe and an obtuse angle on the other side with a wide slip. In order to make both slips of the same size, we elected to go in a straight line so all the boats could be accommodated more safely. If the Board has any questions on any portion of the application, what I will do, I know that there was concerns about the stakes, the job was staked two or three other times, the same distances out, and only the stake of a center line was provided. We've gone through two winters, so those stakes -- we also have some photographs. If there's a concern about the width of the waterway, you will see that this 100 foot extension of -- the 95 foot extension over all that, the waterway is in addition 220 feet wide. So it's less than the one-third distance. TRUSTEE KING: That's private bottom there too? MR. COSTEllO: All private bottom and it's been managed. The moorings have been managed. The waterways and the moorings have been managed by the Gardiner's Bay Homeowner's Association. They are concerned. One of the reasons to make it straight was one of the homeowners would like to see slightly more room, by angling the dock and making it straight, it takes up less of the waterway. The one corner of the float is not on an obtuse angle sticking out. So actually it is reduced by the two foot width, from eight foot to six foot wide dock, the angle is changed so that obtuse angle doesn't project one corner out into the waterways further. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just the question I have and you answered half of it I think, where the stake is now, the association controls the moorings also because it appears that there's a mooring 10 or 15 feet from the stake and they're willing to take that out and they're not using it. MR. COSTEllO: They're going to manage them. MR. MADSEN: That will be removed. If we get out there and the width is too close to that mooring it's coming out. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just didn't want to hear a week later that they put the dock over my mooring. Board of Trustees 45 June 21, 2006 MR. MADSEN: My name is Larry Madsen, Gardiner's Bay Estates. I'm on the board for 18 years, marine chairman. I've done all the permits in the past. I'm getting tired of permits, he's doing them now. What I would rather hear from you any questions from you, if there's anything wrong with this. TRUSTEE KING: I was the one that held it up because I couldn't go with eight foot floats. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I went out there today after John called, and it goes out further than the old dock, but not further than what you asked for. It's stuck out there. It does stick out, but as you're showing on the diagram, there's still 220 feet across and they're going out nothing near that. So there is plenty of room as long as the moorings are moved and everything else. So I don't have a problem with the dock the way it stands. Any other comments before from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Would this be the last addition? MR. MADSEN: We're not going out any further than that, no. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The only problem which you don't want to hear about is we can't act on that tonight because there's no LWRP, Local Waterfront Revitalization. We have to get a statement saying whether it's consistent, inconsistent, what happened was since it wasn't staked, it went up and they didn't do it because this particular application was going to be tabled tonight because it wasn't staked. John called this morning, I went out and looked at it this morning said okay, but we don't have a Local Waterfront Revitalization. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we approve it? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You can't because you don't know what they're going to say. MR. MADSEN: Mark was down there already and looked at the project and approved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand that. I'm not arguing, we just need a piece of paper. TRUSTEE KING: As long as it comes in consistent. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can we use an old one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was trying to interject here. We have an LWRP evaluation from the last time that this was submitted, granted it has changed. TRUSTEE KING: But it was downsized. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. It's downsized. If it was consistent with the eight foot floats, it certainly will be consistent with six foot floats. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would approve it with a stipulation that it comes in consistent. Board of Trustees 46 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's my mistake, I'm sorry. I apologize. What happened is there actually is one dated June 15th based on this evidence. What I had believed was we hadn't gotten a new one and that we had one to from three or four months ago. So there is no problem. Any other questions? I make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion that we approve the application of Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association as stated in their application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Recuse. MR. JOHNSTON: Note that four votes, please, one recusal. 10. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of FRED FRAGOLA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dock and wood bulkhead and remove the debris to an approved offsite location; install a 25' by 50' boat slip at the southwest corner of the parcel connecting to Fordham Canal, dredge minus 6' below mean low water, 1000 plus/minus cubic yards of material and bring to an approved offsite location. Install a 5' by 20' cutout off the boat slip in the northwest corner of the boat slip to accommodate a 5' by 20' float with a ramp to provide access for a vessel moored within the boat slip. Restore the natural shoreline vegetation to 1,092 plus/minus square foot of area adjacent to the boat slip and create a vegetated 50' buffer area of non-disturbance and to include a 4' wide pervious gravel path to access the boat basin and shoreline area. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-8 TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment on this? MR. HALL: Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services. I just want to make a quick note that this project has been approved by the DEC in association with a consent order. I guess there has been some issues with the original plan that has been approved so they went and redesigned the project with Mr. Chuck Hamilton of DEC to include the project as now proposed. I'd be happy to answer any questions or clarify any aspects of the proposed activities. TRUSTEE KING: The present bulkhead is going to be removed? MR. HALL: Yes, the entire present bulkhead is going to be Board of Trustees 47 June 21,2006 removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What kind of plantings are going to be in that area? TRUSTEE KING: There will be no bulkhead? MR. HALL: There will be no bulkhead except associated with the proposed boat slip. There will be no bulkhead on that northwestern half of the property. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be restored to the natural shoreline? MR. HALL: Yes, there's a planting plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm looking at it, but it doesn't show for that area. MR. HALL: There's different symbols on the left. The area between the high and low water should be planted with alterna flora, and then the slope there from the high water mark to the toe of the slope is planted with patens, then the buffer area there's some shrubs and switch grass. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That whole side, right? MR. HALL: The plantings also continue on the south side of the boat slip as well, as does the buffer area. TRUSTEE KING: Looks a little radical. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's all by consent. MR. FRAGOLA: Fred Fragola. I'm the owner at 1145 Gull Pond Lane. The design was exclusively performed by Chuck Hamilton from the DEC. The consent order is based on his direction, quite honestly there's never been any input by me, virtually everything that was I told I'll accept and bear the cost. TRUSTEE KING: Can you reuse some of that sheathing to redo that basin? MR. FRAGOLA: According to Tom Samuels, it's highly unlikely, virtually going to have to digest it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The floating dock is about the only thing you're reusing? MR. FRAGOLA: Probably very accurate, and maybe one or two of the pilings, but I can't even answer that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Seems like there's no decisions here. MR. HALL: It's a gravel -- TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? MR. MCGREEVEY: CAC, we're taking a very drastic approach on this, in our opinion we disapprove of the DEC proposal. We feel that ripping out the present bulkhead, the system that's presently there, even if it is in violation would cause more damage to that narrow canal now and into the future. Our recommendation would be to leave that bulkhead in place, disapprove the proposal for the slip and shorten Board of Trustees 48 June 21, 2006 the present dock. We think that would be, from the conservation point of view, a better approach. MR. FRAGOLA: Can I make sure I understand? You want to shorten what? TRUSTEE KING: Their suggestion is to leave everything the way it is and just shorten the dock. MR. FRAGOLA: I'm not opposed to that. I just want to understand, shorten the dock, what do you mean by that? The 20 by 6 you want to make it smaller? MR. MCGREEVEY: Shorter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the idea was so there was a dock parallel to the bulkhead. Instead of the dock jutting out as it presently does with a float at the end, so you have two boats on it, the idea was I believe the dock would come parallel to the bulkhead, which means there would be one boat slip. MR. FRAGOLA: Let me speak very clearly, what transpired a couple years ago, we were looking to turn around, have the area dredged, remove the shoal and bring everything close to the bulkhead. Turned out, whether the permit was accepted, changed, whatever the issues are, what we have is what we were allowed to dredge. Now there's always been a navigational issue here, when you come around that corner there, the whole design by putting that slip in there is now you don't have a vessel out there, you take the shoal, whatever you protect it and bring it back. So contrary to what you're saying I disagree on that based on the tidal wetlands, and how it's going to have exposure of whatever type of erosion because they're pulling everything back, going back to natural vegetation, going to lock whatever type of vegetation there. And as far as shorten my float and dock, 6' by 20', that's -- TRUSTEE KING: I think originally that dock was shortened from the first go around. MR. FRAGOLA: It's always been 6' by 20' in all the paperwork. It's never been larger or smaller. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was longer the initial. MR. FRAGOLA: No, there was a fixed dimension, 6' by 20', have the original paperwork here from the first time. I was always hoping it would be bigger. I was kind of shocked it was 6' by 20', but I understand it's the way it is. TRUSTEE KING: There's only going to be riprap in that one corner? MR. FRAGOLA: I believe so, Jim. He's looking to lock up my neighbor's property, Helen's, secure that. We do have an issue right there, my neighbor's property just to the south Board of Trustees 49 June 21,2006 of it. We have a tree that's virtually held in there, but when that bulkhead is removed, virtually everything's going to go. MR. MCGREEVEY: You mean the present bulkhead, what's there? MR. FRAGOLA: Yes. But it's still an issue on where that bulkhead is now with that tree. Eventually I'm going to lose that beautiful tree I have there, but basically there's nothing I can do based on what Chuck Hamilton has designed on that. MR. MCGREEVEY: Another point, Jim, on putting that bulkhead into that slip, what you're doing is you're increasing lineal feet upon the waterfront, hardening the waterfront. That has to be taken into consideration. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a big problem, if somebody digs into his own property and digs a basin like that, I don't have a problem with that. It's his property. Yes, sir? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's a man-made canal. MR. SOBIESIAK: Yes, my name is Robert Sobiesiak. I'm the southern adjacent property owner. I sent in some correspondence earlier this week, I don't know if you received it, but I have a couple of extra copies. I just have a few concerns as they affect me and the property. The first of which, when the slip is cut in it's only going to be 30 feet from my house, approximately, at the far end of the slip. I don't know if that's significant but it seems very close to my dwelling. When they remove the bulkhead, I have concerns about the return on my property. They relocated one of my piles during the tie-in. I gave them permission to tie-in under the last project and at that time they relocated a pile from the landward side into the waterway. So I don't have a pile where it had been before. The hydrographic profile as it currently exists is not the way it was at the time of the original construction because when they jetted in the piles and the sheathing, a lot of silt was washed in, and it washed in under my floating dock and now I'm aground at many low tides, which wasn't an issue prior to that. And I'm concerned that any new construction in that area is going to cause additional silt to be under my dock and leave me high and dry even worse than it is now. They're going to have some extensions in the canal going out I believe 16 feet from the proposed slip. I'm concerned about navigation, again, and also accumulation of sediment and ice. This will be just north of my floating dock. As it is now, the beach or the new sill thing causes a great deal of ice build-up in the winter, which causes Board of Trustees 50 June 21, 2006 damage to my dock. I have had to have repairs over the last two winters to my dock. And his plantings that are proposed on the north end, in the water way, which is only going to be a few feet from the end of my dock, I assume at some point it's going to grow over and encroach upon under my dock, further reducing the depth to the waterway. I basically have these concerns with the as proposed project. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: LWRP has found it consistent. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there silt booms around there, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any but that's something that we would request. MR. HALL: They can be if you would like them to be. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But they weren't required? MR. HALL: They weren't on the consent order I saw from the DEC. MR. FRAGOLA: May I speak? If you're talking about the hay bales and the silt fence -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. In the water. To answer his problem of the material moving around, they have silt booms that block that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At the entrance to this -- I'll call it a boat basin that's going to be created, do you know why the DEC asked that that entrance jut out into the canal, it looks like 13 feet or so? MR. FRAGOLA: To the best my knowledge is based on the shoal, we had a sounding done on the property, that's what's necessary to get deep water. Right now, if you can -- I may be able to give you an overlay. There's a shoal right there, that's what's necessary to bring the vessel into deep water. MR. HALL: Have the problem of having adequate water depth into the slip, bottoming out every time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When I looked at the planting plan that answered my question. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Building up on each side? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I looked at the planting plan it answered my question. It's going to be a wetland area. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from the audience? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, and I am an adjacent property owner of this project. I have a few questions, and you know, I can only ask them of the Board. But I see on the plans where they don't differentiate on the 1,000 cubic yards of fill that's going to be removed, what Board of Trustees 51 June 21, 2006 is going to be removed from the channel way? The same concern has been expressed before, because every time there is construction, there's a degree of that fill that does enter the waterway. Is any of that going to be taken out? The trouble is, the plans don't depict that yardage that's going to be taken out. Taken out because that channel way was dredged in the '50s, to an eight foot depth, that channel way is narrowing up with a slumping of the side walls, cliffs and I don't see -- I wasn't given the consent order from the DEC -- but I would like to know the extent of time that they have to maintain and provide survival of the alterniflora because by dredging and increasing the slope that is not natural, you are not going to be able to maintain the spartina alterniflora there. MR. MCGREEVEY: What would you recommend there? MR. COSTELLO: It won't grow on a sharp slope that's nothing but pure sand, and they should recover as much of that fill in order to make that waterway usable not only for them but in the future because there will be some maintenance dredging in the basin. MR. MCGREEVEY: In your background with regard, what would you recommend with the present set-up the way it is now? MR. COSTELLO: A low sill bulkhead would probably work much better, that's the only way you can get the alterniflora to grow in that area adjacent to -- MR. FRAGOLA: I think the drawing says that. MR. COSTELLO: But the dredging is not adequate on both sides. When you dredge you're going to have other problems, but I think they should be given the ability to dredge enough of that channel way, which has been slumping in since the '50s. It's narrowed up, it's narrow. But in order for them to use it, they will need some degree of a maintenance dredge permit and the low sill bulkhead is the only way you're going to get any of that vegetation to stay whatsoever. MR. MCGREEVEY: Would that present bulkhead be shortened? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, cut down to create low sill bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, just cut it off to put one timber on it and let the tide rise above it. And then let them dredge additional fill. MR. FRAGOLA: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. MR. COSTELLO: If you left some of the existing bulkhead there at a lower level, you would be able to maintain the Board of Trustees 52 June 21,2006 spartina alterniflora, which you're required to put in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus it prevents some of the sloughing off. TRUSTEE KING: Instead of removing all this bulkhead to the north, cut it down to make it a low sill bulkhead. MR. FRAGOlA: John, may I ask a question, my neighbor, Bob, who had just mentioned something. I'm very, very concerned about stabilizing his base in the winter, floating dock tying in there. Is there anything you could recommend in addition to this that we can maybe put on? MR. COSTEllO: I'm not here to solve it -- I haven't investigated the neighbor's site, but when you take the material out, and most of the material will probably be non-useable because of the degree of deflection in it, the fact of the matter is for a low sill bulkhead, that material will be fine. And on your neighbor's side, I think you should probably, when you're dredging to provide fill for the low sill bulkhead, take additional yardage out of that area because the basin is almost 1,000 yards, it doesn't depict the yardage and from where it's coming. MR. FRAGOlA: You're recommending that I dredge towards Bob and Maryann's house? MR. COSTEllO: And take some of that fill out, absolutely. MR. FRAGOlA: I would love to do that. MR. COSTEllO: How long does the DEC require vegetation exist? MR. HAll: Eight-five percent over five years, usually, he didn't say it. That's usually the standard. MR. JOHNSTON: What is deflection; what do you mean by deflection? MR. COSTEllO: If you're building a bulkhead and you put fill behind it, you will see that the sheathing has a bow in it if it's long. If you cut it in half, you can use both halves, but if you try to build a new bulkhead out of old sheathing it's a problem because the timbers have a curve. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think it's a good idea; how do we do it. Do you understand our dilemma? MR. FRAGOlA: I don't have a problem with anything you're saying. I agree with everything that was brought up. I think we should redraw with the engineer, go back to the DEC, and come back to the Trustees. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I make a suggestion, table this and let the applicant know that this is an idea that we're entertaining. You go back to DEC and say here's what the Trustees were thinking about, would you accept this and at least throw it in as a possibility. Board of Trustees 53 June 21,2006 MR. FRAGOLA: I have no problem, but I do have a question, the window of time, I'm virtually putting everything down, closing shop in a sense and letting the whole summer take place and catch at the end of the season, so minimal disturbance to my neighbors, et cetera, et cetera. My only concern is I'll go back to the DEC, based on the DEC's response, they tell me yes or no; I don't know where your calendar falls, if I'm going to run into a three month window or if there can be an exception to this that I can -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Because he can come to us with an amendment if things change. If we want to approve with our comments, with the low sill and any other comments we have or conditions, then you go back to DEC, and if they accept it great. If they don't and they want different changes, then you have to come back to us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we amend it, that way at least if they approve it, you have an approval. MR. FRAGOLA: Window of time is what I'm concerned with. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're saying is we can approve what's there right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With any conditions that you want to put on it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But are you going to make the conditions low profile? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So we're not approving what's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can approve the concept of the plan. TRUSTEE KING: Where do you want the low sill bulkhead, on both sides? In other words, on the south end it would be the neighbor's bulkhead, in other words, presently there's a bulkhead there now, you want to make it a low sill. On the north side of the basin, how far do you want this low sill? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The entire length. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Cut it off at the water line, a foot below, a foot, foot and a half, just cut it down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying the whole thing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He still has to vegetate that because it will drop down. TRUSTEE KING: I have a feeling we're knocking heads here. MR. FRAGOLA: May I step up? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. FRAGOLA: The problem here if you look right now with the dotted line, this is the current bulkhead; this is the proposed bulkhead here. Based on the jog here, it's not going to work here. However, I am not opposed of blocking anything in here. Obviously a limited amount of Board of Trustees 54 June 21, 2006 disturbance, have an engineer step into this, but I don't think it's going to work because of where the bulkhead presently is and the line we're bringing back. But I'm not opposed to anything that makes sense besides all land and vegetated. We've come up with something, but like John Costello says, let's see whatever I can do to protect my neighbor over here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make that low sill. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's so high. MR. FRAGOLA: Call Chuck Hamilton and talk to him and say, look, how about you can turn around and see what he says, accept to do anything, provided I can get this thing in the fall. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we table this and you tell him our concerns, and see if we can modify this. MR. FRAGOLA: I have no problem with anything the Board wants to do here. TRUSTEE KING: As far as the basin and the ramp, I have no problem with that, that's your property. MR. FRAGOLA: Let me talk to Chuck Hamilton first, this is pretty much his design, this is not mine. We'll come back and discuss the concerns and talk about this here. The thing I know what is going to be an issue, dredging is the issue now. This area here, if we can remove whatever type of fill out here for my neighbor next door, we did have fill that came over and disturbed our stock, I'd like to see whatever I can do to resolve that. I'm very, very receptive to protect the neighbor in any way. I don't want any issues with him. So, how do I move forward, Chuck Hamilton? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Talk to Chuck, tell him our concerns. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that we table it, come back next month and we deal with it. TRUSTEE KING: You're automatically on next month. MR. MCGREEVEY: Have you made a definitive decision based on the slip itself? I know you've been talking about the lower bulkhead; have you made a determination so he knows going forward that he has the permission from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I just told him as far as this basin and I don't think the Board has a problem. MR. MCGREEVEY: A consideration is you would be setting a precedent of creating new slips. TRUSTEE KING: We have recommended that on many occasions. If the people can dig into their property, it's one of our recommendations. Lots of times we try to do that with a low sill bulkhead. I'll make a motion to table this Board of Trustees 55 June 21,2006 application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 11: En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DOROTHY DICKERSON PETERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage, deck, and steps; install a drainage system of drywells; and establish a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the wetlands boundary. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#123-4-6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann: of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The project is fairly straightforward. It is a proposed new dwelling on one of the last if not the last vacant parcel in this area. It has been designed in a way so as to situate the proposed septic system beyond your wetlands jurisdiction to establish a 50 foot nondisturbance/nonfertilization buffer, as is the Board's requirement adjacent to the wetlands boundary, which would be demarcated during construction with a line of staked hay bales and silt fencing, which is depicted on the site plan. Drainage system will be installed to mitigate potential increases in runoff, and the house has been designed to the minimum size allowed by code and which would be able to meet a 75 foot wetlands setback, formerly this Board's wetland setback for structures and still the New York State regulated and required setback for structures. And we are setting the house a distance from the road that will require a variance from the Zoning Board for five feet of relief so as to enable us to construct a minimally sized house on this parcel and still meet the 75 foot setback. It will be deemed inconsistent with the LWRP because it is located within this Board's jurisdiction. However, I would continue to point out, as have others in this room, that if it wasn't within your jurisdiction we wouldn't be here. We cannot situate the house any farther in a manner that would not result in the sterilization of the lot for building. So it would be our position that the Board would grant it with the mitigation proposed of the 50 foot, which we can achieve. And the fact that the Board always seems most concerned about can keep the septic system entirely beyond your jurisdiction. The site was staked, and if you have any questions, I can hopefully answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. LWRP was inconsistent for that Board of Trustees 56 June 21, 2006 reason only. CAC tabled it because the proposed house was not staked. I don't know when they went out. MR. MCGREEVEY: Tuesday on the 6th. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if it was staked. MR. HERMANN: It's been staked for a month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the other comment they recommend all trees beyond eight inches remain. This area, like Rob said, there is one more lot on Deep Hole Creek that's vacant. There's a lot three before this that's very narrow that there's a house built on it. The house is side ways, I don't know if you guys saw this. The front door's on the side. It's interesting how they did that one. I have no problem with this. And that house is 10 feet from the road as well. So it's in line with the other lots that are narrow and to have a 50 foot buffer is great. You can have a four foot path going down, you can add that to it. Is there any other commentfrom anybody, from Board members? MR. HERMANN: I don't think we could agree to any stipulation about the maintenance of certain size trees. I would like to, but the reality is that given the area here where the septic has to be installed, the dwelling and the driveway, I don't think it would be possible to guarantee preservation of any particular trees other than those that would be within the 50 foot buffer because I am afraid I'd be making a promise that the contractor could not realistically agree to. Just the building area to work in is too small. I'm sure that they would have plans of revegetating the parcel, and if there are any large trees particularly along the perimeter that could be maintained that they would want to do that. So I don't think they would do any gratuitous clearing, but I don't want to commit them to anything the contractor could reasonably maintain. TRUSTEE KING: Make the proposed pervious driveway, if it is ever paved in the future, drainage is provided for it. Lots of times they put a gravel driveway in then they blacktop it and it all goes out to the road. The pervious driveway, lots of times a couple years down the way I would like to stipulate that if it is blacktopped or made impervious, that a dry well be installed to take its drainage. There's a new drainage code being designed in the Town now. MR. HERMANN:. I don't think that will be a problem. My guess is that the state permit will actually require as a condition that it be installed and maintained as a pervious driveway. I mean, the Board could do the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with the black top. MR. HERMANN: I realize your vantage point is realistically Board of Trustees 57 June 21,2006 they may do something else. TRUSTEE KI NG: If they take care of the drainage, what's the problem. What's happening today, they are blacktopping and putting everything on the Town roads and creates a problem for the Town. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, it made me happy just to read the application in the sense we didn't have to say put out staked hay bales; we didn't have to say gutters and leaders, and I just compliment you on trying to follow-through, it makes our life a lot easier. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve En-Consultants on behalf of Dorothy Dickerson Peters request for a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage, deck and steps; install a drainage system of dry wells and establish a 50 foot nondisturbance/non-fertilized buffer adjacent to the wetlands boundary. You can have a four foot wide path leading to the creek, and the driveway to be pervious, and if at one point it doesn't become pervious, that they contain the runoff on their own property. And all as per the plans submitted. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 12. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FREDRIC FABIANO & HILDA HUTCHERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 72' timber staircase with platforms down bluff face and 4' by 4' steps to beach at seaward end. Located: 2386 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM#54-1-4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, on behalf of the applicant. can't offer more than what's offered on the application and plans. It's a fairly standard pedestrian walkway down the bluff to the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else have any comments pertaining to this application? This was found consistent by the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Committee recommended approval. We did go out and look at this and it was staked, the top of it was staked, and everything looked fine. I have no clue how this crew's going to go up and down that bluff to do this. If there are no comments from the Board -- Board of Trustees 58 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Was this the one with the gazebo, we were just saying is that a permitted structure? MR. HERMANN: The Town of South old CO for it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Fine. We just said, if it wasn't you should get it now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Fredric Fabiano and Hilda Hutcherson as per the request. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MELISSA & ARTHUR BEISEL requests a Wetland Permit to convert the existing boat ramp to a boat slip by removing existing marine railway and plus/minus 21' and plus/minus 24' north-south sections of existing timber bulkhead; constructing a new plus/minus 22' east-west section of vinyl bulkhead; backfilling the portion of the ramp landward of average high water; and dredging the portion of the ramp seaward of the average high water to a maximum depth of minus 3' average low water. Widen the boat slip on its easterly side by plus/minus 3' by removing and replacing (in-place) plus/minus 51' section of existing landward timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; removing plus/minus 50' and plus/minus 3' sections of existing seaward timber bulkhead, walkway, and steps; and excavating and dredging the fill area between the two bulkheads to a maximum depth of minus 3' average low water. Construct new steps and 3' wide walk along seaward side of new plus/minus 51' vinyl bulkhead. Use approximately 145 cubic yards sand/silt excavated/dredge spoil to backfill ramp and bulkheads, and truck any excess material offsite to an approved upland source. Repair westerly side of boat slip by removing and replacing (in-place) plus/minus 53' section of existing timber bulkhead along westerly property line with vinyl bulkhead; removing and replacing (in-place) plus/minus 38' section of existing seaward timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead (to be raised plus/minus 2' to meet landward grade); removing plus/minus 3', plus/minus 30', and plus/minus 10' sections of existing landward timber bulkhead, walkway and steps; and removing and replacing (in-place) plus/minus 14' section of existing timber Board of Trustees 59 June 21, 2006 bulkhead fronting James Creek with vinyl bulkhead (to be raised plus/minus 2' to meet landward grade). To east of boat slip, remove existing step-down platforms and plus/minus 62' and plus/minus 10' sections of existing landward timber bulkhead; and remove and replace (in-place) plus/minus 63' section of existing timber bulkhead fronting James Creek with vinyl bulkhead (to be raised plus/minus 2' to meet landward grade). Located: 3760 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-24 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I just handed up to Lauren a set of revised plans. There's nothing that was changed substantively. There was just an error on the cross view, which I can't explain, that incorrectly referenced the volume of spoil, so that has been corrected. I also on the cross views showed the existing bulkheads in green case that helps you see it any better. I realize you probably all ended up with migraines trying to read this plan. Basically the end result of this thing is that the boat slip, the existing boat ramp, is going to be converted into a boat slip. So I'll try to use this photograph, I'll probably be able to speak loud enough. They're going to seal off just above high water this ramp and remove these sections of wall and backfill behind it. So you're just going to have this boat slip here. Steve Pollack is the contractor, and I told him he's doing this in as complicated a way as he could imagine, but he really isn't. What the problem is here, there are actually two bulkheads and this is all fill. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Underneath that? MR. HERMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what we had a question. MR. HERMANN: This is in effect the bulkhead. But the way they constructed this was to provide these lower walkway/fill dock areas, similar to what used to be at the Murray Marina, only filled. So what they're going to do is eliminate these, but they're going to do it in two different ways. On the side they're going to eliminate the outside -- I'm going to get this backwards, do you have a copy of the first sheet of the plan? That's it. Actually give me a new one because now I'm looking at this backwards, so I'm not going to remember what it is. This is going to be, this outer wall is going to be removed and replaced in-place with Board of Trustees 60 June 21, 2006 vinyl, but it's going to be raised up to the elevation of this back wall. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. MR. HERMANN: And all this is going to be removed and backfilled. We can't get rid of this outer wall because that's actually what serves to retain the fill and keep it from going on the neighbor's property. So that wall will simply be removed and replaced in-place. Now, on this side, they're going to widen the slip by actually eliminating this entire section. They're going to pull out this wall, excavate out the fill, and eliminate the walkway, and then just remove and replace in-place the wall behind it at the same elevation. To add confusion to it, they will then construct an open pile walkway on the outside of this, so the appearance will be the same except it will be open surface waters rather than fill area. So that way you'll end up, again, exactly like the Murray Marina. There will be a step-down walkway. There will still be steps coming down here, only there will be water under here instead of fill. So the boat ramp will be a slightly wider boat slip, this area all becomes raised, and this area all that fill gets removed. Now, on the outside on the creek itself, they're going to be doing the same thing that they're doing over here for these outside sections. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Taking out the low -- MR. HERMANN: They're going to remove and replace the lower bulkhead, replace it with a higher, vinyl bulkhead and then remove and fill what's behind it. So what you'll have is a much neater looking boat slip with single vinyl bulkheads the whole way around. And when you try to show all of that on a plan that has to meet with the Department of the Army's eight and a half by 11, it becomes almost impossible. It took me a week to draw this. If you actually followed -- you'd have to read the project description and follow around in a circle and it works, something that's very, very difficult to show. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a buffer area? MR. HERMANN: Wasn't room for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the distance between the two bulkheads, the one you're going to remove and raise? MR. HERMANN: I think it is easier to establish a 10 foot nonturf buffer just as if it were a standard replacement. TRUSTEE KING: Like a room for 10 feet? MR. HERMANN: Yes, it's just lawn down there now, so there's Board of Trustees 61 June 21, 2006 no reason why not. TRUSTEE KING: They're losing the ability to haul their boat out. I find that strange. MR. HERMANN: Maybe it was Steve was just telling me that the newer boats, it wouldn't even work that way, I don't know why. You guys would know better than me. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Silt booms, are they planning? Particularly when they're digging everything up there. MR. HERMANN: I think everyone will end up requiring that, so you might as well require it. That's the other critical element that I failed to mention is that the interior of the ramp will have to be dredged and that section between the two easterly bulkheads has to be excavated and dredged. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So when you're doing that you should have something across. MR. HERMANN: Yes. In fact, there's a dashed line that connects the two points of the bulkhead, and that's where the silt fabric would go. TRUSTEE KING: CAC have any comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: The only comment, Jim, was on their printed notes, it didn't mention that the lower portion of the bulkhead would be creosoted. MR. HERMANN: Not the lower portion of the bulkhead, just the stringer of the bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: What's the Town's position on that, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: We have allowed it. MR. JOHNSTON: The state? TRUSTEE KING: I think the state allows it too. MR. HERMANN: The state still allows CCA, they haven't made any policy changes really with respect to the treatment. They haven't needed to because most of the towns have taken the lead on that. If the state changed it you would be changing it up at Lake George and everywhere else. So they haven't done anything. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Questions? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And explained. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Hold on, we're including a nonturf buffer? TRUSTEE KING: There's, a 10 foot buffer around the perimeter of this new basin and silt booms during construction for the dredging. Board of Trustees 62 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: Thank you. 14. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ALLISON BYERS requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing timber sheathed bulkhead along the eastern section of the subject property with vinyl sheathing and reinforce same with rock armor at the base. Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#119-1-14.1 and 14.2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. We have plans, and basically these plans are similar to the ones that are already in your file. The Plan Number 1 is our basic site plan in that what we have done is we have made really two, perhaps three changes. The first was to take the jog out of the bulkhead, which was pointed out by Mr. King at the field inspection to smooth that out. I checked with the contractors, Mr. Costello is here today, and he will be assisting Miss Byers in the replacement of this bulkhead. So that's integrated in the plan. Peggy, you talked about the 125 feet of bulkhead that's in good shape that's out to the south; and we have indicated on our plan that we would not seek to replace that, and the idea there was to minimize the disturbance. But I have sort of left that up to -- I'm suggesting that that would be handled by some sort of letter notice, so that when the work, if there is an emergency reason why something has to be done, then the contractors would be in direct contact with one or all of the Trustees. We're not quite sure how the vinyl bulkhead will line up with or connect to the wood bulkhead. But we do agree that that section is in good condition, and that there's no immediate need to remove that section, so that's indicated on the plan. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, just to back up for a second. Are you leaving the replacement of that entire section out of your -- or do you want to just -- MR. ANDERSON: What we want to say bulkhead replacement subject to letter permission from the Town of Southold Town Trustees. Meaning that when they get to that section of the bulkhead, if they can leave it in-place, they're going to leave it in-place. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You want us to permit the whole thing, though; that was my question. MR. ANDERSON: Subject to your notification and your on the Board of Trustees 63 June 21, 2006 ground determination. I don't know how else to do that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what I was asking. MR. ANDERSON: We have also provided for what is called a splash plan. Because when you get to Sheet 2 out of 3, you'll see a cross-section there, and you have a large fetch to the east, so when the east winds drive those waves into the bulkhead, it's going to hit that toe armor, the water's going to splash up over the bulkhead, so we provide you with a splash pad to stabilize that section. Call it a nonturf buffer, call it whatever you like, we think that's probably a useful design element and that's added onto the plan. All else on that sheet remains the same and then finally, on Sheet 3 of 3 is the planting plan which is requested by Mr. Bergen in the field, and that is simply to make clear that the entire bluff face is to be filled in, planted with beach grass one foot on center. There are areas on that bluff that currently have vegetation on it. They would remain, so this would be to sort of augment that so you have some control over that bluff in terms of its erosion. So those are the basic plan changes, and I think they're fairly consistent with what was discussed in the field a week ago Tuesday, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak about this application? Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a couple questions. The access road, how is that going to be created and then what's going to be done afterwards to try to bring that area back to its original condition? MR. ANDERSON: We're going to plant it. How it's going to be created is probably best described by Mr. Costello who has already built an access road. MR. COSTEllO: Probably about 80 of 95 percent of the area where that access road is you can see going down on a diagonal, so what happens is you can actually level it off, it's sand, level it off and grade it off and drive a backhoe or bucket loader right down there, it's a gentle slope, you can walk on it, and you can drive heavy rocks and materials down. On exiting, you will probably narrow the road up by angling both slopes and revegetating it with beach grass. And actually I've done several jobs similar to this where they had permission to build stairs, they refused to build the stairs because it was so easy to walk down on the remains of the pathway, and the vegetation really grows on it because it's a gentle slope. It's easier to maintain Board of Trustees 64 June 21, 2006 than vegetation and you'll have it grow right over. And if there is ever an emergency, you can always take some small piece of machinery back down. If you ever had to fill something, if ever had to go there to do the other end, you still know the access way. It's a minor revegetation if you should do that. That's why you have to put it on a diagonal, so you keep the slope that can be maintained easily. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My other question, and you said you proposed revegetating with beach grass; previously it was stated that there had been attempts by the owner to put beach grass and they have never taken; that was stated previously. I'm a little confused because somebody said they tried beach grass on this property and it didn't work. MR. ANDERSON: I would think it would work because it's pure sand. MR. COSTELLO: I can answer that by putting the rocks in front of the bulkhead, that flat-face bulkhead, without the rocks, is going to put more water up on top than you want to see. The adjacent property has beach grass and where they have a gentle slope dissipating wave energy, beach grass will by putting that scouring pad in there, putting a nonturf buffer 10 feet then beach grass, you'll have some beach grass migrate into it, but the rocks are the key to dissipate wave energy. That's why the beach grass will work. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments by the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did Mr. Costello say he had already created that access road? MR. ANDERSON: What was done in '92, the access road was laid out in the same place. What you see today, it was already graded once. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, an observation on the south end of the present bulkhead where the return goes westward, there is an erosion problem at the end of it; is that being addressed? TRUSTEE KING: I believe so. MR. ANDERSON: What we're doing is we're extending the return to the end of that erosion, and then the toe armor will follow that and jet south to the side of the dunes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can you see it here; do you see what happens? It answered your question I think. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just for the record, it is consistent with the LWRP so there's no problem that way. If there are Board of Trustees 65 June 21, 2006 no more questions, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I will now make a motion to approve the application of Allison Byers to replace the existing timber sheathed bulkhead along the eastern section of the property with vinyl sheathing, reinforce the same with rock armor according to the plans handed in today, Page 1, 2, and 3 dated June 21st. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PRINCIPI PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new two-story restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a restaurant with second-story living space. Located 64300 Main Road, Southold. SCTM#56-7-2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? MR. ANDERSON: I know you're familiar with this. I don't think there's much more to say only that I'm stating for the record we were coming back with all the odds and ends left over, which there was a lot to do. This application before you relates to only the restaurant. We will be coming back for bulkheads, bulkhead returns, there's going to be a planting plan established for both sides. I'm hoping to design a low profile bulkhead that will follow the shoreline on the east and west and pull out the brick that's presently there to stabilize that embankment. I would like to redo all the docks so they are brought up to code, that they're functional, that they're better suited than they are today. I'd like to dredge the inlet. So there's a lot to do here. When I come back to do next, there's going to be more agencies involved including the Town's Planning Board, Town's Zoning Board, DEC, Army Corps, Department of State. I am here to advise you that's what I intend to do. If for some reason I am not working on this anymore, I will let you know that. But the restaurant is really all we're here to discuss today. There was, always has been an apartment above, your notice speaks to the apartment. It doesn't matter to me if you are here to rule on that today or whether we come back. You can leave that back, I'm perfectly happy with that because that's going to involve a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'd like to leave it off because right now Board of Trustees 66 June 21, 2006 it's not allowable in the code. You can have the second story, you won't have to come back for us when you do the living space because you're not expanding on the building. You will have to go to building and zoning. So I'd like to take that part off the application. MR. ANDERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about your septic? MR. ANDERSON: We have -- the approvals are still in force. These are approvals for 188 seats, believe it or not, that's what that current septic is designed for. It includes the grease traps. The use of this is going to be far less than what it's historically designed for. It's already in the ground. It's between the building and the road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's fully functional. MR. ANDERSON: Fully functional. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about drainage; do you have dry wells on this survey? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know if I do, but I'm perfectly happy to add those. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I'd like to see those on here. I'd like to see as many as you can. MR. ANDERSON: We can give you a two inch rainstorm and calculate that out and engineer it the way commercial site plans are supposed to be engineered. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be great. So we'll take off the section on the second-story living space that is not included in this. So I'll read it quickly. It's a Wetland Permit to construct a new two-story restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a restaurant with the existing septic system that is fully functional and dry wells. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I add a couple of things? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I was just going to ask. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is M2? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says on M2 when you're reconstructing or building a marina, and are we talking marina here? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The line I'm getting to is when you reconstruct or build a marina, the Town code says you have to build a pump-out station. MR. ANDERSON: I would think you should have a pump-out station. I would anticipate that you would require one. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't see it here. MR. ANDERSON: That application hasn't been filed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What it says is construction of new or Board of Trustees 67 June 21, 2006 additions to existing marinas, shall require establishment of a pump-out facility. MR. ANDERSON: Again, I'm coming back because we have a problem with the number of slips and everything else, and I anticipate that as a requirement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not an addition, so to speak, because he's putting the same size structure that was there before. MR. ANDERSON: This is just the restaurant. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But he's building a whole building, you can't say it's nothing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not saying it's nothing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just think it's an opportunity to get it in now, so let him get it in now. What are we going to say next, he has all the docks in there already. MR. ANDERSON: John, let me be clear, we are going to completely redo the docks. In '92, your last record goes back to when Dean Blakey operated it, and there were -- I don't remember the numbers, but for the sake of argument there were 20 slips and now there's more like 40. So this thing went from 20 to 40 over a 15 year -- 14 year period with apparently no paper approval record. So one of the things I have to do is come in and fix that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand. One of the things I'd like to see that get in it in now. MR. ANDERSON: Well, you're going to get it anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John is saying let's put it in now. MR. ANDERSON: Put it in now, probably what you would have is a hand-held. But I don't know that right now, the only thing I'm hesitating is there's any employees there to service the marina. It's more like people just sort of dock their boats there. I don't know who's going to be operating it right now is what I'm saying. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's something to work out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since you have to include the dry wells and everything, you have to include it on these plans. MR. ANDERSON: What you're going to see is that, like we have a brick trove, it's like a wheelbarrow and really what you're looking for is an area where it connects to the septic system. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. From boating, the Town is going to spend $85,000 now for a pump-out boat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Minus the grants. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The government is investing $90,000 for a pump-out boat, and we are making a sacrifice, and this is an opportunity to put a pump-out station in a marina that Board of Trustees 68 June 21,2006 there isn't. That's all I'm trying to get across. MR. ANDERSON: I'm fine with that. What does it look like on a plan; is it an area that's designated? MR. MCGREEVEY: Where does it get pumped into? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It doesn't get processed there. Usually you call up and have it taken away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a holding tank and they have a service come. MR. ANDERSON: You want like an underground receptacle? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. Some of them have little portable tanks too. What you said before. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Portable, almost a hand cart, a self-contained tank. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If I bring my boat up to the marina and say I need to pump out, you need to have a facility to accept it. It's nothing major. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cutchogue Marina has one, New Suffolk has one. MR. ANDERSON: The one we use in Brick Cove, there's a boat that they use and also a wheelbarrow and I believe that goes into their own septic system, but I could be wrong. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're wrong about that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the audience, from the Board? MR. JOHNSTON: Are all the Trustees familiar with the language? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll read it. It says construction of new marinas and additions to existing marinas shall require establishment of pump-out facility for vessel sanitary waste, and that's for commercial docks, marinas, yacht clubs and restaurants, and it says and restaurants. It's Section 97-27 (2) commercial docks, then in parentheses marinas, yacht clubs, restaurants. All right, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the request for a Wetland Permit to construct a new two-story restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a restaurant with the condition that we get a new survey showing the dry wells to contain all roof runoff; and, as I stated before, the septic system is functional, and also to have a pump-out station as per code on the plan and -- MR. MCGREEVEY: Jill, parking area pervious? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know, that's a good point I believe it Board of Trustees 69 June 21, 2006 is now, isn't it? And it's asphalt already, so the dry wells -- the drainage for the whole property so not just the restaurant. MR. ANDERSON: I would suggest we do the dry wells for the building. We have to go through a whole site plan review. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Planning Board will address the drainage on that. I have already spoken to them and the Building Department, actually this part does not have to go to Planning Board, it goes to the Building Department, and I spoke to Mike Verity, and he is also addressing draining. MR. MCGREEVEY: It is also a concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's a concern with the Building Department. And the one section behind the bulkhead, on the east side, there's nothing there right now just sand; what is planned there for plantings? MR. ANDERSON: The bulkhead should be extended at least another 10 or 12 feet on both sides and there should be a return. When they did the bulkhead work, again, without a permit, which we have to correct, in my opinion, it's not even done properly, so you're going to see that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm talking not directly behind the bulkhead but on the east side of that building, the little corner. This area here, there's nothing there right now. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we have any plans for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't want to see any hard surface or grass there. MR. ANDERSON: Gravel or-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gravel or plantings, just like a buffer area. I don't want lawn. We don't want lawn all the way over here. MR. ANDERSON: Why don't I then, I'm going to revise this and send it back for dry wells and so forth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, this is all subject to revised plans. MR. ANDERSON: You want a designated area in here and say nonturf area? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And the other area there's no area to put in turf. TRUSTEE KING: That was pitched and graded towards the bulkhead too. You have to be careful. MR. ANDERSON: You remember, Jimmy, the bulkhead's not even done properly. It's going to be disturbed again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want it on this permit as well. You come in with the bulkhead, we'll probably say the same thing. I'll read it again. Wetland Permit to construct a Board of Trustees 70 June 21, 2006 new two-story restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a restaurant, the east side will be a nonturf buffer, there will be a pump-out station and dry wells to contain all the runoff, and all subject to a new survey showing the revisions. MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, can I ask you to put the reference for the code section, so we're clear where in the code section. 2B, and use the same language, the establishment of pump-out facility for vessel sanitary waste. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read it the first time. MS. CUSACK: Jill, is there any protection during construction like you can't put hay bales because I don't think there's any space, but maybe run a silt fence. There's going to be a lot of construction there. TRUSTEE KING: There's not going to be ground disturbance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's all there. MS. CUSACK: They did put down hay bales when they did the foundation originally. MR. ANDERSON: I don't know whether you care, there is also the feature if you look at that foundation, we're going to have to fill that to grade, which entails putting about 18 inches of gravel in the cavity, bring it up to grade, then we're going to have to put in what's called hydrostatic openings to comply with the FEMA regulations, which will be rated in one inch per one square foot to comply with the FEMA regulations. Poking holes in that, I don't know if you want to regulate that but so you know, that's something that's going to come about as a result of the building permit process. Right now it's not even constructed to code. TRUSTEE KING: Long ways to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 16. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed elevated catwalk with steps secured with 6" diameter pilings, 3' by 15' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock secured with 6" diameter pilings. Located: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MS. MOORE: You're very familiar with this property. I know you've seen it in the last couple years between the subdivision and the development permits. We are proposing a Board of Trustees 71 June 21,2006 dock on this property. I know that there was a question, someone had asked, I think we sent you a letter with a copy of the deed with respect to the right of way, but I don't know if it got to you yet. I don't have that portion of my file, so I would be happy to go over it with you. Did you get something? TRUSTEE KING: I don't see anything. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not as of the other day. MS. MOORE: I would have to check with my secretary when it actually went out. But just to give you a little background. The dock that's located at the end of the right of way, that right of way was created back in 1984. The original subdivision that created the larger Gregersen's Keep lot, the two lots before our subdivision, and at that time in '84 it was a conservation subdivision. The large tract up by the north end of road was a large peace of property that was deeded to the Nature Conservancy, Mr. Quinten owned Marcus, and then Quinten owned the two larger parcels that are about three and a half acres each that are on the landward side of Gull Pond, on the west side of Gull Pond Lane; those two parcels, they made arrangements to access or have water access by virtue of that right of way. And what occurred is over time, let's see in '84, this is from your records, Marcus Quinten applied to the Trustees and the DEC to construct at the end of this right of way a 4' by 60' fixed dock, 3' by 16" ramp a 6' by 20' float and four spiles for the use of Lot 3 and 4, according to the application. Later on in '89 Land Use Company on behalf of Quinten asked for an extension and got an extension for the "L" at the end of that particular dock. Again, the parcels that have benefited from the use of that dock are the landward parcels, the two parcels on the west side. It was done by way of a reservation in a deed, a right of way in a deed, and I will get that for you. I don't have that section of my file here. I apologize. I thought it would have gotten to you by now. We went through the subdivision, went through the development process and all throughout we have always shown that right of way as a right of way with a dock for the benefit of someone else. And at this point in time, the parcel that is before you is for its own exclusive dock. I think I have answered the question you had. TRUSTEE KING: The right of way is on that piece of property, right? MS. MOORE: Yes, well, it goes back from '84. Apparently when that was done, it was done by way as a right Board of Trustees 72 June 21, 2006 of way. They could have done it as a strip instead of a right of way, but that would have taken away from the acreage of the property but probably that wasn't the intent by the Marcus developers at the time. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You see our problem, though, by code, you're only allowed to have one dock per property, and the right of way hasn't been cut off so it's still that property. MS. MOORE: But you have to understand that your code was adopted after this right of way and the dock was developed. So you can't retroactively impose a restriction on a property that was developed in '84. That right of way and the dock was created in '84. Our property obviously is current. So for example, if you were do Toman application I have before you, Toman we're doing the same thing, but in that instance we are doing an agreement between the right of way owner, the person who has the right over the right of way because the owner of the land underneath the right of way remains the main property owner, and the property owner, in that instance, we have agreed that that dock is going to be for the benefit of both properties that you're doing today when we're creating the right of way. You can't retroactively apply your rules to a project that was done in '84. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There is one piece of property and that one piece of property has a dock. Now you're coming and you want a second dock on that one piece of property. MS. MOORE: Brownell, maybe you can explain better than I. TRUSTEE KING: Why can't that be bought? MS. MOORE: I would love to split it off, but the problem is that that's considered a lot line change, and that requires subdivision approval. So that can't be accomplished. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That can be accomplished. I mean, a lot of people do lot line changes. MS. MOORE: That was just subdivided and the map was just filed. You cannot resubdivide after a map has been filed. There's a limitation in the Suffolk County Real Property Law, you can't resubdivide for two years. Understand what I'm trying to say is you're imposing that one dock per property rule, you just adopted that in the last code revision. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's always been the policy of the Board that there's one dock per property. MS. MOORE: Again, that was imposed in '84. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that was the policy at that time. It wasn't in the code, but it was the policy of the Board. Board of Trustees 73 June 21, 2006 MS. MOORE: As a matter of law, a policy is not a law. And we've gone through various application processes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is that true? TRUSTEE KING: I want to get a determination from the Town attorney on this one, that's what I want. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have the deed anyway. MS. MOORE: I'll provide that for you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll table this. MS. MOORE: The DEC has the same or similar policy, and we have explained to them as I've explained to you, that this right of way was created in 1984. A policy that comes in later, you can't go back, it's like saying something is illegal today for an action that was taken before. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But that policy was in place in 1984. MS. MOORE: Can I say that that was in place? No. There is nothing in writing that tells me that was in place. That's your opinion, but it was not as a matter of law. And there has been lots of cases because -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So if we go back in the Trustee minutes and find out that by policy that we allowed on dock per property, then is that acceptable? MS. MOORE: No, it's not, I'm sorry. A regulation -- what you have adopted as far as the law goes is what people follow. Policies are not the law. I could not go and -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, you're applying today, so -- MS. MOORE: But you're saying that one dock per one property is your policy today; but I'm saying that right of way and that dock was for their use and exclusive use for the landward parcels, and it was created in '84. So what is today's rules, this occurred all in 1984. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's a lawyer's question. Let's take some other comments. MR. WITT: My name is Richard Witt, Mr. President, Trustees, I live at 1710 Gull Pond. I have two four acre parcels on the north side of the road that has the right of way to this dock. It's fun I that I hear this come up now because I have been after this since the Zoning Board of Appeals, and when the subdivision came through and they asked to cut this piece of property in half. I finally noticed after the ZBA that right of way wasn't in there. I thought it was an obfuscation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that it kind of looked like, oh, if we divide this property in half, there's a dock on each piece of property, there's not going to be a problem. And I was trying to stress to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Mr. Krupski, your predecessor, that what they're creating on Gull Pond now is something that never existed, Board of Trustees 74 June 21, 2006 which is a piece of property that does not have a dock and that's going to cause us problems in the future, and we shouldn't let it happen. Bygones be bygones it has happened, now we have something to deal with; we have a piece of property here up for sale that doesn't have a dock. In front of it, I can't tell you how environmentally sensitive it is, there's swan's nest, a fiddler crab, snapping turtle that comes up and lays eggs at my electrical meter every year, whooping cranes, there's a tidal pool that makes the fish gull, it's a ridiculous little area, but now we have a piece of property on Gull Pond that does not have a dock. You can't enforce that if somebody buys that piece of property that goes, no, you can't step on that beach. Now you're stuck in a quagmire, and how do we get ourselves out of this. To answer your question, just because I'm curious, before this was subdivided, there was two docks on that piece of property, right? MS. MOORE: Good point. MR. WITT: Before this was subdivided there was two docks on this piece of property, the large dock on the right and the floating dock that I own. So there was always two docks on that piece of property. But now that they cut it in half, we wind ourselves into a problem, which I was trying to bring to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the last Trustee Board that was up here, that we're creating a piece of property without a dock. So how do we solve this? Let me make a suggestion. This huge dock on the right, used to service that entire piece of property, all two and a half acres used to get serviced by that dock. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Trustees allowed it to be cut in half because as they looked north, they said this will match all the other pieces of property, they're all about one acre in size, and that way if we make them one acre in size, it will fit right in and everything will be happy and it will conform. And everybody loves that word "conform." It will conform to all the rest of the pieces of property to the north. If you go north on all the pieces of property, you'll see they all exactly have the same dock that I have. That one piece of floating dock that sticks out there. And that's what services that one acre of property. You can take both these pieces of property and put one of those floating docks on each one. You wouldn't increase dock size in Gull Pond square footage wise, do you know what I mean? You wouldn't be increasing boat space, you would basically take the dock that exists now, and just split it into two floaters. And that would be the only way I could Board of Trustees 75 June 21,2006 see out of this little quagmire that we put ourselves into. We can't leave this piece of property without a dock, and I hate to say that because I didn't want it to happen in the first place, but I find myself in a dilemma here. That piece of property without a dock becomes a dangerous situation, especially for all the wildlife on the water. MS. WITT: Antoinette Witt, I own the property next to him. There's another option, since it's a large dock, you could split it between the two. MR. WITT: I thought about that first. You could use that same dock that used to service the two acres, and then you have to come up with a right of way to get to that dock from the other piece of property, then you have right of ways going all over the place. MS. WITT: The other option is because it's such a big dock, you could either cut it down and make it into two or because it's such a big dock, split it between the two house owners, like we split ours. MR. WITT: Like we split ours. I mean the dock we have here at the end of the road, I split between myself and Henry Quinten. That's my suggestion. But I can't see you can't leave that piece of property without an access to the water. It's a disaster. Whoever buys that property is not going to say, no, you're not allowed to walk, you can't do that, it's not going to happen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like an opinion from the Town attorney on this. I'd make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MOORE: I'll get you that letter and a copy of the deed so you can see that that right of way is for Mr. Witt's benefit. TRUSTEE KING: It wasn't reviewed under LWRP either. MS. CUSACK: We told him the Trustees didn't inspect it because of the ownership issue. 17. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHN & JEAN WEBER requests a Wetland Permit to repair/replace the existing bulkhead and dock. Located: 590 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-17 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the application. Mr. and Mrs. Weber are here. Actually, the intention was that they could do the Board of Trustees 76 June 21, 2006 in-kind/in-place at the same time that the property owner to the west you saw, if you were there at the property, you could see that that bulkhead was recently replaced. The Board must have granted a permit recently for that. So they're going to continue to replace their bulkhead. It's in mediocre shape. Certainly the floats and ramps are in worse shape than the bulkhead, but the bulkhead would be replaced by the vinyl sheathing just like the rest of that cove is, Budd Pond. TRUSTEE KING: I had a couple of questions just on the construction of this. I noticed where you have the step-down area, and you've got a platform there, it's bulkheaded, why did they double bulkhead this? MR. WEBER: The property is higher than the adjacent properties. So in order to have a less steep ramp down to the floating dock, they had to lose a couple feet. The adjoining properties are both approximately 18 inches to two feet lower. TRUSTEE KING: My suggestion, when you replace this bulkhead, instead of having to put a secondary bulkhead underneath the seaward edge of that platform, just leave that open and just have your platform in place. MR. WEBER: Instead of a double walled bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: Sure, it would save you money, and you would still have the same bulkhead, except there's no bulkhead and no fill under there. So just redo the "U" shaped bulkhead, just replace that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's going to be exactly the same. TRUSTEE KING: That bulkhead is unnecessary. MS. MOORE: The elevation where the house is -- I'm looking at the cross-section. This is where the house is, the elevation of the house, it steps down to a platform; are you talking about from here to the bulkhead? This portion here where it steps down? Because this comes down, it turns around, it's a very tight area. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KING: What they have shown in the plan is an "L" shaped bulkhead. MS. MOORE: We asked Bob Fox to draw exactly what was there because that's what he was requesting. MR. WEBER: See, you don't have to have this wall go down into the creek. It can stop here and the front wall is going to hold the water back. TRUSTEE KING: I'm saying all you need is a "U" shaped bulkhead here, you don't need that other bulkhead. Just put a platform across in the same location as this lower flat Board of Trustees 77 June 21, 2006 piece you got water under it, bulkhead behind it. (Discussion. ) TRUSTEE KING: That would be our suggestion, build that "U" shaped bulkhead, with that platform at the height you want it instead of paying for two bulkheads. It's exactly the same as what you have got, it's just that there's no fill under it. It's just water. It's going to save you extra expense. MS. MOORE: You want it drawn now. TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt from the LWRP. The only thing we'd like to see is maybe a little 6' nonturf buffer. I know you don't have a lot of room there on either side. I know you're kind of cramped on space. MS. MOORE: It is very cramped. MR. WEBER: I'd be happy to have the whole thing nonturf. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll take it. MR. MCGREEVEY: On the diagram that we're working with, I don't know if it's an oversight but there was actually a porch on the building on the southeast corner, which isn't on the diagram, I don't know if that comes into the picture at all. TRUSTEE KING: All we looked at was replacing the bulkhead. I'm not worried about that. Anybody else? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We just didn't look at whether there is or -- I don't think it's going to come into the picture. TRUSTEE KING: CAC wants a 6' nonturf buffer also. MR. MCGREEVEY: Approximately 12' by 18' deck. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Questions? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted. It doesn't have to be, but I would recommend that that secondary seaward bulkhead just be done away with and have the platform be built in place, just have the "U" shaped bulkhead. I think it would make it a lot simpler for you. MR. WEBER: I think it would provide better depth too because you wouldn't have that front wall have the silt up against it. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think it would be beneficial. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 18. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT & JACKIE SULLIVAN requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the Board of Trustees 78 June 21, 2006 existing residence with additions on the north, west and landward sides of the existing dwelling. Located: 2715 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-13-8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Sullivans. This is again, another straightforward one. This is a renovation of a house with the addition, which is actually set back from most of the main structure. The porch, there's an enclosed one-story porch that is going to be renovated and expanded, but not expanded to the extent that the house goes towards the bulkhead. All other structures are actually on the landward side of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments? I went and looked at this; it's as the plans depict. It looked fine, everything was staked. The only thing there was a pool on the diagram, but that's outside our jurisdiction. We are requesting that the roof runoff drainage be addressed with the addition that's going on at the house, there will be dry wells and gutters there. Those are the only comments I had. If there are no other comments from anybody, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit of Patricia Moore on behalf of Robert and Jackie Sullivan at 2715 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue as stated. It was consistent with the LWRP and CAC recommended approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 19. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS LUNIEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 32' dock, 4' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 470 John's Road, Mattituck. SCTM#122-3-25.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Mr. and Mrs. Luniewski are here. You have described the project adequately. If you have any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC says they weren't able to locate it. Did you realize it was at the end of the road? MR. MCGREEVEY: There was one stake and it should be better staked. MS. MOORE: There's a lot of shrubbery, so it's hard. Board of Trustees 79 June 21, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP is consistent. And, Jim, you just wanted to make sure about the starting point, to be careful where we started so we all agree. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Does that stake represent the outer end of the float? MS. MOORE: Yes. The landward end was where the ramp -- come on up here. MR. SAMUELS: This is the smallest section of wetlands across. MS. MOORE: Bob Fox actually selected the location based on depth of water as well as limit of crossing any wetlands. So we have up by the west end of his property, he's the actual owner of John's Road, so he owns the whole thing. There's a stake at the entrance. There is also a stake in the water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to make sure we're very clear on the landward. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question was just how to locate it, that's all. TRUSTEE KI NG: It shows the edge of the bog on the survey. MS. MOORE: I'll circle it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're looking for a landmark of some kind. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It lines up right next to the marina. MR. SAMUELS: There's a new float and dock at the marina. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, it fits perfectly. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the survey, the starting point of the dock is 15 feet landward of the edge of the bog. MS. MOORE: Do you want us to make it 15 feet? TRUSTEE KING: The starting point of the catwalk starts 15 feet landward of the edge of the bog. MS. MOORE: A little further landward, right? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He's measuring from the survey. TRUSTEE KI NG: As a matter of fact, it's about 16 feet but let's call it 15. It just gives us a point to start because there's nothing to measure from. MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. You're crossing over top the bog on the first leg of the 4' by 32', that's about right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Looks like it's about maybe half-way out. MS. MOORE. it's a third of the length of the entire fixed dock TRUSTEE KING: What we looked at is fine. Where you have that stake in the water, sometimes these things grow after we issue the permit, they tend to grow. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments in from the Board? Board of Trustees 80 June 21, 2006 MS. MOORE: It's actually right at the edge where the cleared area is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's nothing distinct. We have it. Any other comments from the Board? Comments from the audience? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 32' dock, 4' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock for Thomas Luniewski, and where the starting point of the catwalk will be 15' landward of the edge of the bog. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Time ended: 10:55 p.m.)